Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10069 of 2018 Applicant :- Hukum Chand Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava 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 Cae No.03/07/2017 which arises from the cognizance order dated 18.1.2017 passed by Special Magistrate (Prevention of Corruption Act) Meerut in charge sheet no.02/2017 u/s 409,465,468,471,120B IPC and 13(1)D, 13(2) submitted by Investigating Officer on 10.1.2017.
Perusal of record shows that the FIR has been lodged on 7.11.2003 and approval for prosecution was given by the Joint Director of Education on 6.7.2007, however this order was never challenged by the applicant. Thereafter the impugned order was issued on 18.1.2017 and it has also come on record that non bailable warrant is pending against the applicant.
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, looking to the fact that applicant is the senior citizen aged about 78 years, 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 concenred in accordance with law after hearing all parties concerned.
With the aforesaid direction, the application U/s 482 is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 SP