HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 44615 of 2019
Applicant :- Neeraj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.904 of 2019 (Case Crime No.746 of 2017), under Sections 354, Section504, Section506 I.P.C., P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit (SectionState vs. Neeraj) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, District Pilibhit as well as the impugned cognizance order dated 21.09.2019 in charge sheet dated 27.12.2017.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that due to political reasons applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per F.I.R. allegation under Section 354 I.P.C. has been made but from the statement under Sections 161 Section164 Cr.P.C. the offence is not made out. 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. At last he submitted that the applicant is ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. He sought some time to surrender before the court below.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed and submitted that as per allegation of F.I.R. as well as statement of witnessed, it cannot be said that no offence against the applicant is made out.
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 in exercise of power conferred 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 proceeding of aforementioned case as well as the impugned cognizance order dated 21.09.2019 in charge sheet dated 27.12.2017, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment 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 :- 9.12.2019