Court No. - 2
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22512 of 2019 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.V. Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 16.12.2018 submitted by the police in case no. 2157 of 2019 (State vs. Unknown) arising out of Case Crime No. 322 of 2018 under section 294, 504, 507 IPC, Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier a case crime no. 414 of 2016 was filed against the opposite party no. 2 and his other family members under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504, 506, 395, 427 IPC in which charge-sheet has been submitted after investigation. By way of counter-blast, the opposite party no. 2 has launched the present case against the applicant. It is further argued that the said case is absolutely false case. What indecent thing was done on the mobile phone of the wife of the informant/opposite party no.2, has not come in evidence and it appears that the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet in a routine manner and cognizance has been taken thereon in a routine manner.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
I have gone through the FIR, which shows that the accused-applicant had established contact with the wife of the opposite party no. 2 on several times on her mobile phone and used to talk indecent thing because of which, the present FIR was lodged. After the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. The evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer cannot be looked into at this stage.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R.
P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.6.2019 AU