Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29712 of 2018
Applicant :- Mahesh Raman Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No.- 5th, Moradabad in Case No. 1829 of 2017 (Mahesh Raman Sharma and Another vs. Meena Vishnoi), Case Crime No. 754 of 2016, Under Sections 452, 307 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District- Moradabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He referred to certain evidence 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 applicants. 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.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicants has failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or likelihood of miscarriage of justice for prevention of which the exercise of inherent powers by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
However, if the applicant nos. 1 to 2 appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail the same 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Order Date :- 26.9.2018 Bhanu