Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Tejki vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|16 August, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10093 of 2021 Applicant :- Tejki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of charge-sheet dated 17.5.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.7903 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.125 of 2018 under sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Hathgaon, District Fatehpur pending in the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur.
The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents 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 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, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view 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 prayer sought as aforesaid is refused.
After arguing the case for quite some time at length, learned counsel for the applicant himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his client would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide the bail application within specific time frame.
However, it is directed, that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant expeditiously in accordance with law.
For the period of 30 days or till disposal of bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With the above directions, present application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 P.P.
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

Tejki vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
16 August, 2021
Judges
  • Vipin Chandra Dixit
Advocates
  • Purushottam Pandey