Court No. - 2
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22507 of 2019
Applicant :- Raj Kishor @ Karu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 9.1.2016 as well as Case No. 2244 of 2019 (State Vs. Raj Kishor and others), under Sections 308, 323 and 504 IPC, P.S. Auchha, District Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that accused- applicant has been falsely implicated. Accused-applicant and opposite party no. 2 are brothers. There is no evidence on record to constitute offence under Section 308 IPC. He further submitted that if the proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to abuse of process of law.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the same.
Perused the record.
It is apparent that the accused is alleged to have committed mar-peet with the opposite party no. 2 and after investigation of the case, charge sheet under the aforementioned Sections has been filed after sufficient evidence having been found by the Investigating Officer.
The arguments made by the learned counsel for the applicant relates to the factual aspect of the matter, which cannot be seen at this stage in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C., as the same would require 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 :- 10.6.2019
A.P. Pandey