HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 35595 of 2018
Applicant :- Dakshapal Singh And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 22.3.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3274 of 2017 (Smt. Vijay Laxmi @ Twinkle Vs. Dakshpal Singh and others), under Section- 498A SectionI.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Agra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants states that applicant nos. 2 and 3 are already enlarged on bail. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that no offence against the applicant no.1 is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
4. 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 no. 1 at this stage. 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.
5. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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.
7. For a period of 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant no.1 in the aforesaid case.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.10.2019