Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22964 of 2019
Applicant :- Ayyub @ Ghaseeta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 78 of 2016 dated 09.05.2016 along with cognizance order dated 17.05.2016 in the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 677 of 2016 (State Vs. Rakesh and others), pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division/F.T.C., Court No. 24, Shahjahanpur arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2016, under Sections- 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 307, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Nigohi, District- Shahjahanpur.
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 at this stage. 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 entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
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 45 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.6.2019 Rohit