Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3674 of 2019
Applicant :- Rajneesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to inadvertent mistake case No. 4016121 of 2018 has wrongly been typed as Case No. 303 of 2018. In support of his contention, he has also filed supplementary affidavit. He prays that he may be permitted to make necessary correction in the memo of application.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the memo of application during course of the day.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet No. 4347 of 2018 dated 11.05.2018 in Criminal Case No. 4016121 of 2018 (State Vs. Rajneesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0029 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Ghaziabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
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 applicant at this stage. 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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and lastly Amanullah and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2016(6) SCC 699, therefore, no case for interference is made out.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is ready to surrender before the court concerned and prayed that some protection may be provided to the applicant.
Considering the request of the applicant and in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Rmk.