Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1837 (ALL)

Mehtab v. State of U. P.

2014-06-09

HARSH KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of charge sheet No.147 of 2014 dated 12.5.2014 submitted by the investigating officer in Case Crime No.164 of 2014 under sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Titavi, Distrcit Muzaffar Nagar in Case No.954 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that there are contradictions between the prosecution version on FIR and the medical examination report as well the statements of the witnesses. 4. It is further argued that the applicants moved an application under R.T.I. Act upon which certain financial powers and administrative powers of opposite party No.2 were seized by the District Magistrate vide order dated 16.2.2013 and feeling annoyed opposite party No.2 got lodged a complaint through his aunt, as complaint case No.760 of 2012 under sections 323, 392, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, the proceedings of which were stayed vide order dated 3.4.2013 of this Court, that subsequently showing the occurrence of 30.3.2014 opposite party No.2 has lodged another false F.I.R. in which charge sheet has been submitted; that in view of the contradictions mentioned above, the prosecution version is improbable the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and perusal of the record I find that from the allegations made in the complaint the investigating officer has found prima-facie case and has submitted charge sheet. Since the cognizable offence is made out on the material on record there is no sufficient ground for quashing the charge sheet. 6. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which can not 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 can not be considered at this stage. 7. 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 can not be considered at this stage. 7. The application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and the prayer for quashing of charge sheet is refused. 8. However, in view of the submissions made and perusal of the record it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004(57) ALR, 290, as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 15 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 fail to appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, they shall not be entitled to any protection against coercive action. The application stands finally disposed of accordingly.