Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19801 of 2018
Applicant :- Pankaj @ Tinku Patel
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Raghawendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Raghawendra Singh, 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 charge sheet no. 3427 of 2017 dated 6.7.2016 and entire criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 3427 of 2017 (State Versus Badal Patel and others), arising out of Case Crime No.732 of 2016 under Sections 427, 379, 504, 506, 352, 452, 147, 148, 396 and 325 I.P.C., P.S. Phephna, District Ballia, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,Ballia.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the case of co- accused an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2522 of 2018 (Rajesh Patel and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and another), which was decided by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2018.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as order impugned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided on same day 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 45 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 do 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 Lbm/-