Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1354 (ALL)

Pradeep Sahu v. State of U. P.

2016-04-12

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings in Case No. 292 of 2016, arising out of Crime No. 76 of 2015, under Sections 143, 188, 341, 336, 353, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kandawa, District Chandauli, pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Chandauli. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the applicants were not named in the FIR and same has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed any offence. For the first time, their names came into light during course of investigation. 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 his contention. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer. 5. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view 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 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 within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same 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., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 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 to surrender before the Court below. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.