Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2209 (ALL)

Om Prakash v. State of U. P.

2016-06-17

VINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-III

body2016
JUDGMENT Vinod Kumar Srivastava-III,J. Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S. Husain Abbas, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned Charge Sheet bearing No. 39 of 2015 dated 06.07.2015, Case Crime No. 15 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sultanpur and the summoning order dated 21.01.2016 passed by C.J.M. Court No. 16 Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 87 of 2016 (State Vs. Om Prakash). 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 proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused. 6. However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrender 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. 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. 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. 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.