Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 608 (ALL)

Amjad v. State of U. P.

2014-02-18

RAMESH SINHA

body2014
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha,J.: - Heard Sri Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 92 of 2012 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Behat, District Saharanpur pending before the A.C.J.M.-IInd, Saharanpur based on Charge sheet dated 18.1.2012. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the proceedings of the present case has been challenged by the applicants by means of filing Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 8234 of 2012 which was dismissed by this Court on 24.4.2013, a copy of the same has been annexed as annexure-4 to the present application. Thereafter the trial court has issued non bailable warrant against the applicants on 17.1.2014. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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. 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 applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 4 82 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. 6. The prayer for quashing the proceedings based on charge sheet submitted in the aforesaid case is refused. 7. However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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. 7. However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 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. For a period of 30 days from today, non bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance. 8. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 9. It is made clear that the applicants will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.