Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Kesarwani, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.
This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of SST No.13 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Sanjeev Srivastava) pending before the Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Act (I), Jaunpur as well as impugned charge sheet dated 15.08.2019 in Case Crime No.235 of 2019, under section 354(A) IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mariyahun, District- Jaunpur as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (7th) (POCSO Act, Jaunpur).
Learned counsel for applicants contends that no offence against the applicants are 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 applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicants, 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 applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail court below shall consider and decide the bail application of applicants 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 applicants.
However, in case, applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, Court below shall be free to proceed against applicants.
With the above directions, present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 Saif