Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21391 of 2019
Applicant :- Vimlesh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunita Singh,Anurag Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no.48 of 2019 dated 21.6.2018 in Case Crime No.32 of under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) Ka SC/ST, PS. Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra and further proceedings of S.T.No.101 of 2018 (State vs. Vimlesh and others) pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Sonbhadra in the aforesaid may be stayed.
The contention of learned 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 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Sections 227, 239, 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 proceeding is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the appellants-applicants appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in the light of the 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. in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
For a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants-applicants. However, in case, the appellants-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 :- 28.5.2019 Rk