Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 609 (ALL)

Samsher Kuraisi v. State of U. P.

2014-02-18

RAMESH SINHA

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Babita Kumari Chandra, learned A.G.A. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding of criminal case No. 68 of 2014 (State vs. Samsher Quaraisi) arising out of Case Crime No. 273 of 2013 under Sections 3/5A/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and 11 Cruelty of Animal Act, police station Gopiganj, District Sant Ravidas Nagar pending before the C.J.M. Bhadohi, Gyanpur, District Sant Ravidas Nagar as well as Charge Sheet No. 206 of 2013 dated 19.12.2013 submitted in the present case. 3. The contention of 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 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, 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. 5. The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as charge sheet submitted in the aforesaid case is refused. 6. However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 30 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 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. 7. 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. 7. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. 8. It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.