Court No. - 60
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18181 of 2018
Applicant :- Munnesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard 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 charge sheet No. 1 of 2017 dated 22.07.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (d) & 3 (1) (dh) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Police Station-Bah, District-Agra as well as to stay the effect and operation of further proceedings of S.S.T. No. 404 of 2017 (State Vs. Munnesh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2017 pending in the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act).
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is next contended that there is also delay in conducing the medico legal of the injured. It is next contended that witness Ishwari Prasad Yadav has not supported the prosecution story in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the 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 applicants. 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.
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 applies 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 :- 30.5.2018/AKT