Anuj Kumar Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh and another

Anuj Kumar Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh and another

Allahabad High Court

9 September 2013

Application No. 30488 of 2013

The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.as well as Sri Munesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet dated 8.2.2013 submitted in Case Crime No. 169 of 2013, under Sections-420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P. S.-Sahibabad, district- Ghaziabad and the entire proceedings of Case No. 2219/13, pending before J. M., Ghaziabad.

3. 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.

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. 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 1960 Indlaw SC 471, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 1990 Indlaw SC 91, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 1991 Indlaw SC 1053 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 2004 Indlaw SC 899. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 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.

5. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case and the chargesheet is refused.

6. However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 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 2902004 Indlaw ALL 424 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. 2009 Indlaw SC 446

7. For a period of 45 days from today of 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.

Application disposed of

Tags: , ,


Comments are closed.