Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39872 of 2017
Applicant :- Kshetra Pal Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in memo of 482 application during the course of the day.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 1924 of 2013, case crime no. 148 of 2013, under Sections- 4/21 of Mines Act and 379, 411, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar pending before the III A.C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar and set aside the cognizance order dated 15.04.2015 and also set aside the order 13.10.2017 issuing NBW against the applicant.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant are 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. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided 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 surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant do 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 :- 28.11.2017 Nisha