Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17333 of 2019 Applicant :- Satyawan Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Sawhney Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 2.11.2011 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 130 of 2011 under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Etah pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Etah.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arising from a minor altercation between the parties, the opposite party no.2 has unnecessarily exaggerated the allegation made against the applicant who is a news reporter. 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 involve factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
4. Specific allegations have been made against the applicant by a government doctor which constitute ingredients of the offence alleged.
5. 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 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
6. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet and entire proceeding of the aforesaid case, is refused.
7. However, 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. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicant.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Meenu