Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24856 of 2018 Applicant :- Hemlata Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Tiwari,Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet and summoning order dated 17.11.2017 passed by Magistrate in Criminal Case No.374 of 2016 (State vs. Hemlata and another) pending in the court of Special C.J.M., Agra and order dated 8.6.2018 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Agra in Crl. Revision No.679 of 2017 (Hemlata Sharma and another vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.453 of 2015 under section 420, 406, 323, 452, 504, 506, 120B IPC, P.S. Siknadara, District Agra.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that no case under section 420 and 406 IPC is made out against the applicants because it is a matter of civil nature.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
Perused the impugned order. The court below has taken cognizance on the basis of charge-sheet which has been submitted by police after investigation in this case in which statement of all witnesses has been recorded. Veracity of the witnesses cannot be looked into under section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Investigating Officer after having investigated the case had found the involvement of the present accused in this matter. From the contents of the FIR and other evidence on record, it is prima facie, proved that a cognizable offence is made out against the accused.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment 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 30 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 AU