Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35977 of 2019
Applicant :- Satya Narayan
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Markanday Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Markanday Rai, learned counsel on behalf of applicant, Sri Mahbood Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 07.07.2018 and its cognizance order dated 02.02.2019 taken by District & Session Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Case Crime No. 0287 of 2018 (State Vs. Satya Narayan Maurya) under section 135-1(b) readwith section 138-b of the Electricity Act-2003, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar as well as other entire proceeding of the abovenoted case pending in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar.
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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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. 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 off.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Arti