Heard Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submits that he be permitted to amend the prayer clause of this application by seeking a challenge to the summoning order dated 16.12.2019, passed by Court below as due to inadvertence same could not be challenged. He, further contends that photocopy of the same is on record at page 44 of the paper book.
Prayer made for is bonafide. Accordingly, the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment in the prayer clause be carried out during the course of the day.
This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Case No. 8414 of 2020 (State Vs. Sachin and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 355 of 218, under sections 380 IPC, Police Station Pallavpuram, District- Meerut pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 02, Meerut including the charge-sheet No. 82 of 2019 dated 28.5.2019 and summoning order dated 16.12.2019.
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 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.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Arshad