HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. – 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 40212 of 2019
Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Kakraniya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Adil Jamal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 1486 of 2019 (SectionManish Bajpai vs. Rajendra Kumar Kakraniya), under Section 406 I.P.C., P.S. Collectorganj, district-Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no. 9, Kanpur Nagar.
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 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got right of discharge under Sections 239, Section245 or 227 SectionCr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weight the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has a right against summoning order to file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide his discharge application, if there is no evidence against him.
The prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused.
However, 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 expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.11.2019/Faridul