Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Sitaram Yadav And Another vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 February, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6322 of 2018 Applicant :- Sitaram Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 26.3.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Trial no.1789 of 2017 (State Vs. Sitaram Yadav and another) arising out of Crime No.82 of 2016 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)X of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of charge sheet as well as proceedings of Special Trial is hereby refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment 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 45 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Hasnain
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sitaram Yadav And Another vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 February, 2018
Judges
  • Rajul Bhargava
Advocates
  • Shailendra Kumar Singh