Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46609 of 2019
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Patel And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and in opposition, Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 09.08.2017, order of N.B.W. dated 11.12.2018 as well as the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3192 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 531 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 120B of I.P.C., Police Station - Rohaniya, District - Varanasi, pending in the court of Special C.J.M., Varanasi.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated by opposite party no. 2. No such occurrence, as mentioned in the F.I.R., has taken place, hence, the charge-sheet dated 09.08.2017 as well as the order of N.B.W. dated 11.12.2018 need to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
I have gone through the F.I.R. and find that the main allegation is against applicant no. 2. At this stage, it cannot be denied that cognisable offence is not made out against the accused- applicants on the basis of contents in the F.I.R. The veracity of the submissions cannot be tested in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
In view of above, the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the order of N.B.W. in the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that in case the accused-applicants appear and surrender before the Court within 45 days from today and move an application for bail, the same shall be decided in terms of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Furthermore, it is provided that the applicants may approach the trial court to seek discharge at appropriate stage, if so advised, and before the said forum, they may raise all the pleas which have been taken by them here. If such an application is moved, the same shall be disposed of without being influenced by the observation(s) made by this Court.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019
I. Batabyal