Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27141 of 2018
Applicant :- Parmanand
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anotehr Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4967 of 2014 under Sections 354 and 452 I.P.C. P.S. Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant stated that earlier the father of the accused applicant had lodged an N.C.R. against O.P. No.2 and three others and after investigation in that case, charge- sheet has been submitted under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and, thereafter, by way of counter-blast, the present complaint has been initiated by the O.P. No.2 after one year of the said occurrence in which the O.P. No.2 has alleged that his daughter has been molested by the accused applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that if proceedings are allowed to continue, that would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
Perused the record and the complaint and it is found that the occurrence in the present complaint is shown of the same date which has been shown by the accused applicant in his case under Sections 323, 504 and 506, although this is complaint moved with delay but the statement of the victim has also been recorded who has clearly stated that accused applicant has molested her which cannot be disbelieved at this stage without trial.
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 Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, 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 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 of.
Order Date :- 6.9.2018
A. Mandhani