HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 44039 of 2019
Applicant :- Damandeep Singh Alias Joni
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 First Information Report No. 220 of 2013 dated 18.4.2013, non bailable warrant dated 4.10.2019 and Charge Sheet No. 263 of 2014 dated 29.8.2014 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1119 of 2015 (State Vs. Damandeep Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 275 of 2013, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, District- Agra.
As per the allegations made in the first information report, it is alleged that certain transformers were loaded in the transport vehicle owned by the applicant, however the same is alleged to have been misappropriated and has not reached its destination.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant 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 FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the impugned orders as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.
Moreover, charge sheet has been submitted on 29.8.2014 and there is no proper explanation for delay in filing the present application and is hopelessly barred by laches.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.12.2019
KU
