SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 52

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 5098 of 2020

Applicant :- Deepak

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 12.10.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.) Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar in Complaint Case No. 2916/9 of 2017 (Santesh Vs. Deepak and others) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station-Jhijhana, District Shamli, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kairana, District- Shamli.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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 applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

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 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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and lastly Amanullah and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2016(6) SCC 699, therefore, no case for interference is made out.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is ready to surrender before the court concerned and prayed that some protection may be provided to the applicant.

Considering the request of the applicant and in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant 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.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 10.2.2020

Junaid

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation