Court No. - 2
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22540 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amitesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Amitesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I.P.S. Rajpoot, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.3.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 18.3.2019 passed in criminal case no. 357 of 2019 (State Vs. Agyat) arising out of case crime no.673 of 2018, under Sections 353, 504, 506, 422 IPC and 7 Criminal Lal Amendment Act, P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonbhadra and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the accused was not named in the FIR his name has come into light of the statement of co-accused Rajan Singh which was recorded on 13.1.2019 after one and half months from the occurrence. He has no criminal history. Hence, the charge- sheet needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
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 and 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 of the aforesaid case 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, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment 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 aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.6.2019 Neeraj