HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 41695 of 2019
Applicant :- Aameen And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma,Kumar Vikrant
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 criminal proceedings of summoning order dated 10.4.2018 as well as further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 37 of 2018 (Shaukat Vs. Aameen others), under Section 377 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Farha, District- Mathura, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that applicants tried to commit unnatural offence with Kasim.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants 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 complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings 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 prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their 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 :- 25.11.2019