SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hariom Sharma Alias Hariom Gour vs State Of Up And Anr on 19 October, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 41

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 36806 of 2019

Applicant :- Hariom Sharma Alias Hariom Gour

Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr

Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Sectionsection 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including summoning order dated 27.2.2019 in Complaint Case No. 6900641 of 2018, Under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, District Agra (Govind Upadhyay Vs. Hariom Sharma) pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 13, Agra.

The contention of the 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 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 applicant. 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 entire proceeding including summoning order dated 27.2.2019 of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

However, it is directed that if 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. 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

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

Order Date :- 19.10.2019

Masarrat

 

 

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