Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10134 of 2018 Applicant :- Harvansh Dua Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of charge sheet dated 28.2.2018 in Case No.6/45 of 2018 u/s 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 419,420,120B IPC PS Kotwali District Meerut arising out of case crime no.97 of 2006 as well as cognizance order dated 6.3.2018 taken by learned Special Judge (A/C) Meerut.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant 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.
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 submissions made at the bar relate to the 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.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, no case for any interference has been made out. Accordingly, the prayer, as made above, is refused.
However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the courts below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on its own merits 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 applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the courts below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is further directed that in case the applicant succeeds in getting bail and in case he is so advised, he may file discharge application before the court concerned which shall be considered and disposed of by the court concerned in accordance with law after hearing all parties concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to raise all such grounds as may be available to him while moving discharge application, if he is so advised.
With the aforesaid direction, the application U/s 482 is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 SP