HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 3429 of 2020
Applicant :- Baljinder Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Lal,Arun Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 02.09.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Case No.126 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.404 of 2019, under Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Kutubsher, District Saharanpur pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, court no.8, Saharanpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicant has not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.
From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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 made in the application is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.
Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.1.2020/Asha