Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29254 of 2019 Applicant :- Sofiyan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Charge-Sheet and cognizance order dated 25.09.2017 in Sessions Trial No.18 of 2017 (State Vs. Sofiyan), arising out of Case Crime No. 0286 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau.
As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 05.06.2017 at about 5:45 PM, the applicant along with 5-6 unknown persons had purchased 3.5 Kg of watermelon from the first informant and when he asked him to pay its price, then the applicants instead of paying the price, assaulted the first informant by kicks and fists and also destroyed the watermelon worth Rs.400/- and threatened him for life.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, impugned cognizance order cannot be quashed.
Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Nadim