SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nasir vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 78

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 7124 of 2020

Applicant :- Nasir

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav,Swatantra Kumar Rai

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet and cognizance order dated 31.1.2020 in S.S.T. No. 91 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 833 of 2019, under Sections 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicant has not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

As is evident, 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.

In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicant be given.

Hence, it is observed that in case applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned.

With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 18.2.2020/safi

 

 

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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