Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30246 of 2017
Applicant :- Dinesh Bharti
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Saleheen Ansari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shamsher Bahadur Maurya
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Saleheen Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shamsher Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
2. Present 482 application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 04.5.2013 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No.704 of 2012, under Sections 384, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mau.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations made in the FIR were plainly false and, in any case, they do not make out the ingredients of the offence alleged. From a plain reading of the FIR along with statements that have been recorded in the Case Diary, in this regard, it has been submitted that in absence of any allegation of delivery of any property by the informant to the present applicant, the offence alleged under Section 384 IPC was never complete. As to the other allegation, it has been submitted that there is gross inconsistencies in the version of the independent witnesses as to the place of occurrence and the site plan submitted along with the charge sheet. While the proposed witness appears to have stated that the incident had taken place inside the house of the opposite party no. 2, the site plan indicates the place of occurrence on a public road.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that statement of the informant and his wife were categorical as to the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence. In any case, there is a criminal history of the applicant which has been specified in the Para-6 of the counter affidavit.
5. Responding to the last objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned counsel for the applicant has clarified that in so far the case mentioned in Para-6 is concerned, that had also been got registered by the opposite party no. 2 who is a person who bears political animus towards the applicant. The applicant had been enlarged on bail in that case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in so far as the offence alleged under Section 384 IPC is concerned, the ingredients of offence are not made out, inasmuch as, there is no allegation or material as to the delivery of any property. The submission of charge sheet and the summoning of the applicant under Section 384 IPC, is erroneous. To that extent the present application is allowed. However, in so far as the other offences for which the applicant has been charge sheeted are concerned, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, are largely factual which would require evidence to be led and appreciated before any firm conclusion may be drawn.
7. 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. For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicant.
8. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Meenu