Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4388 of 2019
Revisionist :- Sohi Mishra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been preferred for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Chandauli in Session Trial No.23 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.246 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sakaldiha, District Chandauli, by which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of opposite party no.2 has been allowed and the applicant has been summoned to face trial of the aforesaid case.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants 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 involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
From a 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 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.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
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 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.
For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Anand Sri./-