Court No. - 2
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22511 of 2019 Applicant :- Mohd. Rashid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Barishter Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Prakash, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 105 of 2019 (State vs. Mohd. Basid and others) and charge-sheet no. A-5 dated 15.1.2019 and cognizance dated 30.01.2019 arising out of case crime no. 182 of 2018 under section 147, 323, 325, 427, 452, 354B, 506 IPC, PS. Sarai Mamrez, District Allahabad pending before Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-7, Allahabad and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2 who is Bhabi of the accused-applicant. It is further argued that no such occurrence has taken place. In statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded of the informant, no role has been assigned doing of maar-peet to the accused applicant. It is further argued that one civil suit is pending between the two sides and because of that animosity, the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The co-accused have been granted bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings.
Perused the FIR. The contents of the FIR reflects that the accused- applicant was involved in doing maar-peet with opposite party no. 2 along with other co-accused named in the FIR and after investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet in the aforementioned sections.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R.
P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryanaand others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down 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 them.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.6.2019 AU