Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19947 of 2020 Applicant :- Lallan Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Pratap Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard ShriSurya Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 10.11.2017 as well as cognizance & summoning order dated 26.7.2019 passed in Criminal Case No.421 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C and under Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station- Mau Aima, District Allahabad, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents 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.
After arguing the case for quite some time at length, learned counsel for the applicant himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his clients would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide his bail application within specific time frame.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.
P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings, cognizance & summoning order and charge sheet is refused.
However, it is directed, that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 45 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the above directions, present application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 S. Singh