Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10044 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav,Ashutosh Upadhyay,Dileep Kumar Pandey,Kaushal Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shiv Priya Prasad, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party 2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicants in Court today, is also taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 27.12.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 264 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 448, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Khuthan, District Jaunpur, Cognizance Taking Order dated 20.01.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur upon aforesaid charge sheet, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Criminal Case No. 335 of 2021 (State Vs. Rajendra Prasad), arising out of above mentioned case crime number, and now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. No. 5946 of 2021 (Gaya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another) filed by co-accused has already been dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 18.3.2021. For ready reference, above order dated 18.3.2021 is reproduced herein under:-
"Heard Mr. Satya Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shiva Priya Prasad, learned counsel for informant opposite party No. 2.
This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 20.01.2021 submitted in Case Crime No. 264 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 448, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Khuthan, District Jaunpur and Cognizance Taking Order dated 20.01.2021 as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No. 335 of 2021 (State Vs. Rajendra Prasad), now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of aforesaid contention.
From perusal of 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicant, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
Accordingly prayer for quashing of charge sheet and proceedings of aforesaid case pending before the court concerned 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 court below shall consider and decide the bail application of applicant as per law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290 and Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the application for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant.
However, in case, applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, Court below shall be free to proceed against applicant.
With the above directions, present application is disposed of."
On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that present application filed by co-accused is also liable to be dismissed.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground mentioned in order dated 18.3.2021.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 HSM