Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43082 of 2018 Applicant :- Mohd. Imran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Imtiyaj Ali,Murtuza Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that if the entire prosecution is taken to be its face value then no offence is made out against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that co-accused Shailesh Agrawal and Udai Kumar Yadav preferred Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.39823 of 2018 in which this Court vide order dated 2.11.2018 has stayed the further proceeding of the case against them. From bare perusal of the order dated 02.11.2018 it is clear that an observation has been made therein that according to FIR co-accused Mohd.Masoom and Mohd.Imran (present applicant) sold the sim card to Anupam Upadhyay.
Considering the material on record, the case of co-accused Satish Agarwal and Udai Kumar Yadav is distinguishable from the case of present applicant Mohd.Imran.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of case No.922 of 2013 (State Vs.Shailesh Agarwal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Gopiganj, district Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi.
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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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. For a period of 30 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 aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 SKD