Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43086 of 2018 Applicant :- Ram Surat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of case No.3447 of 2015 (State Vs.Ram Surat and another), non-bailable warrant dated 26.10.2016 as well as chargesheet dated 21.08.2015 arising out of Case Crime No.272 of 2015, under Section 379 IPC, Section 4 & 10 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Bhadohi, district Bhadohi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed. Opposite party no.2 has falsely implicated the applicant without any evidence and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He has further submitted that the dispute is civil in nature and applicant has no knowledge about the criminal case as well as non-bailable warrant.
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. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceedings, chargesheet and non- bailable warrant is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 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 the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018/SKD