SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2020


?Court No. – 83

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 9215 of 2020

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet no. 140 of 2019 dated 3.5.2019, cognizance order dated 18.7.2019, Case No. 3213 of 2019, under sections 504, 506, 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Gajraula, District-Amroha arising out of case crime no. 0011 of 2019 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha as well as for stay.

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that there is money dispute between the parties and no offence under section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant 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 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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.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.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 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 :- 17.3.2020

Vibha Singh



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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