Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32097 of 2018
Applicant :- Ashish Maurya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 18.11.2016 submitted in Case Crime No. 320 of 2016, under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that in the actual occurrence, it was the opposite party no. 2 and his accomplices who had assaulted the applicant and his family members, who had received serious injuries. In that regard, separate FIR is claimed to have been registered wherein charge-sheet had also been submitted. It is thus submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by way of counter blast though the injuries claimed by the opposite party no. 2 are simple in nature. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
4. 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. 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 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
5. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
7. Once the applicant shall be enlarged on bail, he may also seek discharge, which application, if any, may be decided on its own merits.
7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Prakhar