Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4852 of 2019 Revisionist :- Saurabh Kaushik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vikas Tripathi,Satish Trivedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Satish Trivedi (Senior Adv.) assisted by Mr. Vikas Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1092 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Girraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 185 of 2019, under Sections- 394, 452, 427, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Tappal, District- Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 01, Aligarh.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that no offence against the revisionist 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 revisionist involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
4. 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 revisionist 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.
5. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the revisionist appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 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.
7. For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the revisionist in the aforesaid case.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Priya