Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2000 (ALL)

Sanjay @ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-07-21

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. 2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for a quashing of the NBW issued against the applicant by order dated 22.5.2013 by ACJM, Moradabad, in Case No. 1142A of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 342, 504, 427 IPC, PS Mazhola, District Moradabad. 3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statement in support of his contention. He further submitted that the applicant could not appear in court due to unavoidable circumstances. Hence the instant application to quash the order impugned by which NBW has been issued against the applicant. 4. All the submissions made at the bar relates 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 5. The prayer for quashing of the order impugned, therefore, is refused. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for some time to surrender before the court below and consideration and disposal of the applicant's bail application at an early date. 6. In view of the above submissions,, in the interest of justice it is provided that if an application for recalling of the non-bailable warrant issued against applicant is within 15 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or, in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 15 days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 7. 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 applicant. However, in case the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken in accordance with law. 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. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.