Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42980 of 2019 Applicant :- Atma Ram Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashwat Kishore Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding in Case No. 8 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime no. 37 of 2018 (State vs. Atmaram) under Sections 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sakrar, district- Jhansi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Mauranipur, Jhansi, as well as order dated 07.01.2019.
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 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got right of discharge under Sections 239, 245 or 227 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weight the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has a right against summoning order to file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide his discharge application, if there is no evidence against him.
The prayer for quashing the proceeding as well as order dated 07.01.2019 is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 AS Rathor