Court No. - 45
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38033 of 2018 Applicant :- Girish Pachauri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Vishnu Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 9.3.2004 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 77 of 2004 (State Vs. Girish Pachauri), arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 2002, under Sections 409,420 I.P.C., Police Station- Chandappa, District Hathras, pending in the court of Civil Judge( Junior Divsion)/FTC Hathras.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
As requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today.
No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of three months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.
If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 N.A.