Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 465 (ALL)

Jag Veer Singh v. State of U. P. and Another

2013-02-07

VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK

body2013
Vijay Prakash Pathak, J.;— Present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.409 of 2012,(State Vs. Khichchu Singh and others) arising out of charge sheet dated 29.8.2012 in Case Crime No.144 of 2012, under Sections 147,504,342 IPC,PS Kakod, District Bulandshahr, pending in the court of IInd Addl.Civil Judge (J.D.))/Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA. 2. The contention of the 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 harassment. It is submitted that the present FIR has been lodged in a counter blast. 3. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the learned court below has legally taken cognizance on the charge sheet submitted by the police after investigation in the matter and no interference is called for under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. I have considered the aforesaid argument and perused the record. 5. 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 or case is lodged as a counter blast. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant are related to 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 and considered 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 applicant/accused cannot be considered at this stage. However, the petitioner may raise all his submissions and objections before the trial court at the stage of framing of charges by way of proper application for the said purpose. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the Case Crime as aforesaid is refused. 7. The disputed defence of the applicant/accused cannot be considered at this stage. However, the petitioner may raise all his submissions and objections before the trial court at the stage of framing of charges by way of proper application for the said purpose. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the Case Crime as aforesaid is refused. 7. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, if the applicant appears/surrenders before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously and as far as possible on the same day in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, (2009) 4, SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. 8. For a period of four weeks from today no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of finally. _____________