Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46449 of 2019
Applicant :- Ashok
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kr. Srivastava,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 15.04.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras as well as charge sheet dated 08.05.2017 and cognizance order dated 17.08.2017 and rejecting the Application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. as well as Case No. 735 of 2017 (State vs. Ashok) in Case Crime No. 980 of 2016, under Section 304A of I.P.C., Police Station Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. 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.
The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their 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.
For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Md Faisal