Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28581 of 2017 Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pratap Narain Gangwar,Vidhya Devi Gangwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant on the stay extension application and Sri Yogeshwar Rai, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.
The stay extension application has been filed with the prayer to extend the interim order dated 01.09.2017, passed by this Court.
Today when the case has been taken up, after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the counter affidavit field on behalf of the opposite party no.2, this Court finds that no indulgence can be granted by this Court to the applicant namely Bhanu Pratap, who happens to be husband.
In view of aforesaid circumstances, no case for grant of indulgence has been made out in the stay extension application.
According, the relief as though stay extension application is hereby rejected and the Court proceed to here the case on merits.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogeshwar Rai, learned AGA appearing for the State, on application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No.404 of 2017, in charge sheet No.50 dated 22.03.2017, in Case Crime No.115 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC, and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant- respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the applicant; no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the prayer and submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.
However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case, applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days months 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant. However, in case, applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019/VKG