Court No. - 38
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36566 of 2018 Applicant :- Ansar And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
The applicants by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.1.2007 and the impugned order of cognizance dated 22.08.2007 giving rise to Criminal Case No. 1142-A of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No. C-39 of 2006 (State v. Raseed & others) U/s 147, 149, 307, 452, 336, 427, 496 and 379 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah.
Ms. Tanisha J. Munir, appearing on behalf of the applicants namely Ansar, son of Munna Pahalvan and Badshah (not named in the F.I.R) has submitted that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case without any cogent evidence against them. The applicant Badshah is not even named in the F.I.R. which has been lodged with the aid of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against ten named and about hundred unnamed accused. She has further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused and in such a huge mob, it is not possible to identify the separate roles of the accused or even their presence in the mob. On the aforesaid grounds it has been prayed that the entire proceedings and the chargesheet submitted by the investigating officer in this case be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs.
State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and the recent being A.R.C.J. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 348.
Therefore, this Court does not deem it proper and cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
At this juncture learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the applicants are ready to surrender before the court and to move bail applications, but in view of the fact that the Courts are going to be closed for Dussehra, they may be granted a time of six weeks for surrender and the court below be directed to consider their bail applications expeditiously.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, a time of six weeks is granted to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned and to apply for bail. If the applicants surrender before the court concerned within the aforesaid period and apply for bail, the court below is directed to dispose of their bail applications expeditiously in accordance with law.
For a period of six weeks from today, which shall not be extended any further, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, in the above mentioned case. With the aforesaid directions this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018/Harshita