1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Brijpal Singh vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|08 April, 2019


Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12977 of 2019
Applicant :- Brijpal Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Sharma,Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Shri.Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri. Anirudh Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the State. Perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.10922 of 2018, (Smt.Sansarwati Vs. Israile & Ors), under Sections 344, 365, 323, 506 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Saharanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Pradhan of Village Jagrauli, District-Saharanpur, P.S. Rampur and on the basis of complaint, statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. no case is made out against the applicant under the aforesaid sections and he further submits that the summoning order dated 31.5.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur is erroneous and further submits that the revision against the aforesaid summoning order has also been erroneously dismissed on 27.2.2019 which is also impugned herein.
Learned counsel for the applicant also took this Court to the materials on record and submitted that the applicant being Pradhan of the village has been falsely implicated and there is no specific allegation against the applicant which can be said to be prima facie sufficient to make out the offence under which he has been summoned and he also submitted that in the application filed before the authority prior to the complaint he has not been named and on the basis of this submission, it is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Further contention of the 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.
On the other hand Shri. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that at this stage, it can only been seen as to whether on the material on record, prima-facie case has been made out or not against the applicant and no defence can be considered at this stage. He submitted that the order passed in revision by the Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the cases of Bhushan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Ors, AIR 2012 SC 1747, Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors, 2015 AIR SCW 1199, Amit Kumar Vs. Ramesh Chander, 2012 (9) SCC, 460 and Chandra Babu Alias Mosis Vs. State, AIR 2015 SC 3566, and the learned Magistrate was satisfied that at this stage there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant.
Considered the submissions.
In view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and 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 as involvement of applicant in the offence alleged is prima facie made out. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as the summoning order dated 31.5.2018 and order dated 27.2.2019 passed in revision therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
In the last counsel for applicant prayed that some protection be granted to the applicant in case he surrenders before the concerned court and further prayed that this court may please to direct the trial court to follow the directions passed in matter of Amarawati Versus State of U.P reported in 2005 Cri LJ 755 (All) as well directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of UP and Ors reported in 2009 (4) SCC,437.
The directions given by the Full Bench of this Court in Amarawati (supra) as well as directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (supra) which are on the issue of (I) to follow the directions passed by Hon'ble Supreme in the matter of Joginder Kumar Versus State of UP reported in 1994 (4) SCC,260, (II) Trial Court to take all endeavour to decide a bail application preferably on the same day and (III) to grant interim bail in appropriate cases pending disposal of final bail application, are very explicit and to be followed mandatorily in letter and spirit.
A copy of the said judgments have already been circulated to all the district courts of State of Uttar Pradesh under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, therefore to repeat such direction by way of another order from this Court is neither necessary nor warranted.
In case appropriate application is filed, by the applicant, the Trial Court shall decided the same strictly in accordance with law.
I have already rejected the prayer of the applicant for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case and other prayers sought in the present application being sans merit, however considering the facts and circumstances of the present case it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the concerned trial court within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the trial court will decide the bail application in accordance with law.
For a period of 30 days from today no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
It is made clear that no further protection on any ground what so ever will be granted beyond the period above mentioned and in case applicant chooses not to surrender within the 30 days from today, the Trial Court is directed to take all the coercive measures in accordance with law against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of. Order Date:-8.4.2019-SB
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Brijpal Singh vs State Of U P And Another


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

08 April, 2019
  • Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
  • Vikas Sharma Garun Pal Singh