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

Navin Singhal vs State Of Up And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|31 October, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38768 of 2018
Applicant :- Navin Singhal
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuraj Kishore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 3.6.2017 passed by A.C.J.M.-5, Meerut in Complaint Case No.541 of 2017, under Section 406 I.P.C., P.S. Medical, District Meerut as well as the order dated 22.9.2018 passed by the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision No.141/2018.
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 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 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 applies for bail, his prayer for bail may 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 judgement 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 off.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Dev/-
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

Navin Singhal vs State Of Up And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
31 October, 2018
Judges
  • Vivek Kumar Singh
Advocates
  • Raghuraj Kishore