Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1103 (ALL)

Varun Chaudhary v. State of U. P. Thru Secy.

2016-03-29

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Ghaziabad and also quash the Charge Sheet dated 5.9.2015 filed by investigating officer in Criminal Case No. 3182 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 861 of 2015 under Sections 406, 452, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants had not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of the contention. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer. 5. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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 prayer made in the application is refused. 6. However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today, 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 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 7. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.