Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36523 of 2018
Applicant :- Pushpendra @ Pappu And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Geetam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 08 of 2018 dated 19.01.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 31 of 2018(State Vs. Pushpendra@Pappu and others) under Sections 498-A, 506, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of case crime no. 175 of 2017, police station-Sidhpura, District- Kasganj and also cognizance order dated 17.02.2018 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge(senior division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.
The submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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. The applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members.
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 submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions 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 applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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. Lal Kamlendra.
For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
It is made clear that no further time would be allowed beyond above-mentioned 45 days on any ground.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Sumit S