HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 34516 of 2019
Applicant :- Rajeev
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gopeshwar Sahai Bisaria
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the revisional order dated 30.7.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 220 of 2019 as well as for quashing the summoning order dated 15.4.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Anola, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 32 of 2017 under Section 498A, Section323, Section504, Section506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Sirauli, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Anola, District Bareilly.
3. 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.
4. 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 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
5. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
6. However, 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.
7. For a period of 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.9.2019