Court No. - 43
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28156 of 2018 Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Chauhan,Navaneet Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,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 entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 409 of 2018 (Old No. 4261 of 2014), (Banwari Yadav Vs. Mahendra Pratap Yadav), under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Atrauliya, District Azamgarh, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, Azamgarh as well as summoning order dated 4.6.2018.
The allegation against the applicant is that he had taken Rs.1.5 lac and Rs.15,000 on 17.5.2007 and 4.6.2007, respectively from O.P. no.2 on the assurance of a job for his son, but no such placement was offered, applicant is liable to be prosecuted under Section 420 IPC.
The complainant examined himself and two witnesses in support of the allegations, the trial court had summoned the applicant under Section 420 IPC.
It is submitted that no offence against applicant is disclosed, 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 cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer claimed is refused. The application is
dismissed.
However, if applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within six weeks from today and applies for bail, the court below, while considering his bail, shall bear in mind, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
For a period of six weeks from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 N.S.Rathour