Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1102 (ALL)

Ram Gulam Sharma v. State of U. P.

2016-03-29

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the applicants in Case No. 208 of 2010 (State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1324 of 2009, under Section 420 , 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Aonla, Bareilly. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 4. From the perusal of 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 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426, State of Bihar versus P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cr) 192, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works LTD. versus Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another (Para 10), 2005 SCC (Cr.)283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge at appropriate stage. 5. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet is refused. 6. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear or surrender before the courts below within a period of 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Versus State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR-290 (affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P.) and the case of Sukhwant Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2009 Vol. VII, SCC 559, after hearing the Public Prosecutor. VII, SCC 559, after hearing the Public Prosecutor. For a period of 30 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 do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, it is open to the trial court to take recourses to all the process permitted under the law for procuring and ensuring the presence of the accused applicants. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of finally.