Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3733 (ALL)

Deo Raj v. State of U. P. and Another

2010-12-15

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2010
Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri B.P. Pandey holding brief of Shri S.P. Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 12.8.2010 and proceedings of case crime no. 570 of 2010 under section 136/137 of Electricity Act, 2003 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Jaunpur. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that electricity connection is in the name of his wife, therefore allegation made against the applicant is absolutely false. 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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 applicants have got right of discharge under Section 239 or 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his bail application shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of 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., after hearing the Public Prosecutor. 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., after hearing the Public Prosecutor. 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 applicants. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaidperiod, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.