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