Court No. - 4
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9216 of 2004
Applicant :- Dinesh Chand Gupta & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ghanshyam Joshi
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A.
The present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet submitted in Case Crime No. 74 of 2004, under Section-306 IPC, P. S.- Bisalpur, district-Pilibhit and the order dated 27/8/2004 passed by the C. J. M., Pilibhit in Criminal Case No. 2113 of 2004 by which protest petition filed by the applicants has been rejected and non-bailable warrant has been issued against them.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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.
Per contra learned AGA submitted that 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 applicants. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants relate to 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The submissions made by learned AGA have force.
The prayer for quashing the impugned chargesheet as well as the order dated 27.8.2004 is refused.
At this stage the learned counsel for the applicants made a prayer that the bail application of the applicants in aforesaid case be ordered to be considered expeditiously, if possible on the same day by the Court below.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. this application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today and apply for bail, then their 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.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 HR