HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 8829 of 2019
Applicant :- Banvari Patel And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Pandey,Alok Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2018, under section 323, 504, 506, 354, 498A IPC and 3 and 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Rohaniya, District Varanasi filed in pursuance of the FIR dated 4.11.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 966 of 2017 and cognizance order dated 12.2.2019 and entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 88 of 2019 State Vs. Banvari Patel others under section 323, 504, 506, 354, 498A IPC and 3 and 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Rohaniya, District Varanasi pending in the court of Special C.J.M., Varanasi.
The contention of the 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2018 and cognizance order dated 12.2.2019 as well as entire proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the 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 :- 7.3.2019