Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6295 of 2018 Applicant :- Dr. Ayub Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Khalid Mahmood,Gufran Ahmad Khan,Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that inadvertently Sections 295 and 505 IPC have been mentioned in the prayer and in fact Section 125 pertains to People Representation Act and not Indian Penal Code, therefore, he may be permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer.
The prayer made is accepted. He may do necessary during the course of the day.
Heard Sri G.A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing entire criminal proceeding in Case No.2134 of 2017 (State Versus Dr. Ayub Khan and others), charge sheet no. 01 of 2017 dated 20.2.2017 arising out of Case Crime No.57 of 2017 under Section 125 People Representation Act, 1950, P.S. Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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. 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as order impugned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided on 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. For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 AK Pandey