Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1258 (ALL)

Kalika Prasad (Contractor) v. State of U. P.

2016-04-06

MOHD.TAHIR, RAMESH SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 21.4.2014 in connection with case crime no.77 of 1998, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., police station Mishraulia, District Siddharth Nagar as well as the entire proceeding of Special Trial No.48 of 2016, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. pending in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.5, Gorakhpur as the same arise out of the charge sheet. 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 charge sheet and entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused. 6. However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders 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. For a period of 30 days from today, non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance. 8. In case, the applicant does not appears before the Court below within the aforesaid period, trial Court is free to take coercive action against him. 9. 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.