Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Manoj Pandit @ Manoj Kumar Sharma vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 October, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 31
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36625 of 2018 Applicant :- Manoj Pandit @ Manoj Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records.
The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 03.11.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.461 of 2018, State Vs. Aman & Ors, arising out of Case Crime No.1224 of 2017, under Sections 147 and 153-B I.P.C., P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in court of C.J.M., Ghaziabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel pointed out towards certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that 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.
Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and the recent being A.R.C.J. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 348. Therefore, this Court does not deem it proper and cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge by moving a proper application for the said purpose before the trial court and he is free to make all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court including those which have been canvassed by him before this Court in this application.
Accordingly the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
At this juncture learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the applicant is ready to surrender before the court and to move bail application but he may be granted a time of six weeks for surrender and the court below be directed to consider his bail application expeditiously in accordance with the law as laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2005 CriLj 755 and affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (4) SCC, 437.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection against the aforesaid prayer.
As the law laid down in both the aforesaid cases, should be complied with in letter and spirit, by all courts, it is expected from the trial court that in case the applicant surrenders before it within six weeks from today and applies for bail it will decide his bail application in wake of the law laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2005 CriLj 755 and affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (4) SCC, 437.
For a period of six weeks from today, which shall not be extended any further, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above mentioned case.
With the aforesaid directions this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date:-27.10.2018-SB
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Manoj Pandit @ Manoj Kumar Sharma vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 October, 2018
Judges
  • S Vijay Lakshmi
Advocates
  • Vikash Chandra Tiwari