1. Heard Mr. Ms. Vijeta Kushwaha, holding brief of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 14th July, 2019, cognisance order dated 8th November, 2019, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1958 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Bhishm Narayan), arising out of Case Crime No. 627 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C., as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Chitrakoot, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
3. 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 applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
4. 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.
5. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
6. 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 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided, if possible on the same day, 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.
7. For a period of 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Sushil/-