Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6800 of 2018
Applicant :- Ateeq
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra, ,Pawan Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra and Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 241 of 2017 dated 26.8.2017, cognizance order dated 3.1.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 398 of 2017 (State Vs. Shabir Shah and others), under Sections 147, 332, 353, 342, 336, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Milak, District Rampur.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. During the course of investigation, his name came into light. As per F.I.R., 11 persons were named who have been granted bail. No offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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 proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused. However, these disputed question of fact will be considered by the court below while considering the bail application of the applicant.
The application lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 A.K.Srivastava