Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2345 (ALL)

Malti @ Ram Sevika v. State of U. P.

2015-08-12

RAMESH SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri R. B. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 19.06.2014 as well as quash the entire criminal proceeding in Case No. 457 of 2014 (State VS. Malti), arising out Case Crime No. 479 of 2013, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, District Kannauj and exonerate the applicant. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased, which is an old lady aged about 70 years. The husband of the deceased namely Rohit has already been granted bail by the competent court while considering the bail application of the applicant. 4. 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. 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. 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. 6. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused. 7. However, it is directed that in case the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law, taking into account that the husband of the deceased namely Rohit has already been granted bail. 8. However, it is directed that in case the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law, taking into account that the husband of the deceased namely Rohit has already been granted bail. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this 482 Cr.P.C. application is finally disposed of.