Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 176 (ALL)

Poonam v. State of U. P.

2016-01-13

RAMESH SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shyam Sunder, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Trial No. 58 of 2015 (Case Crime No. 363 of 2015) (State Vs. Guru Dev & others) including charge sheet dated 13.7.2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Sadabad, District Hathras as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 7.10.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the husband of the applicant has already been confined in jail. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused. 8. However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, her prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 9. 7. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused. 8. However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, her prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 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.