Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3819 (ALL)

Anita Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-11-28

BACHCHOO LAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Bachchoo Lal,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet No. 63 of 2013 dated 17.4.2013 and entire proceedings of case no. 875 of 2013, (State Vs. Anita Devi and another) arising out of case crime no. 79 of 2013, under sections 5, 6, 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, Police Station Meja District Allahabad pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10., District Allahabad. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that on 2.4.2013 the opp. party no. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant and one Ruchi Tiwari levelling the allegation that on 2.4.2013 in Board Examination, Ruchi Tiwari was giving examination in place of applicant. It has further been submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. False allegation has been made against her. It has further been submitted that offences under Sections 5, 6 and 10 of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 is not made out against the applicant. It has further been submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant. The complainant had demanded money from the applicant to appear in the High School examination. The applicant has refused to fulfil any demand of complainant due to which false F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant. The prosecution story is not probable and believable. The Co-accused Ruchi Tiwari was not apprehended on spot. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He further points out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has argued that in this case the complainant Renu Yadav, the Principal of the college, had lodged F.I.R. against the applicant and one Ruchi Tiwari. The co-accused Ruchi Tiwari was found giving examination in place of applicant. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant in the year 2013. The applicant has not appeared before the court concerned. There is no ground to quash the proceeding of the case, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. The co-accused Ruchi Tiwari was found giving examination in place of applicant. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant in the year 2013. The applicant has not appeared before the court concerned. There is no ground to quash the proceeding of the case, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the chargesheet and entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as chargesheet of the aforementioned case is hereby refused. However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, her 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against her. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.