Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 625 (ALL)

V. K. Khandelwal v. State of U. P.

2016-02-22

RAMESH SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Varchasva Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.11.2015 registered as 45973 of 2015 in case crime no.1283/2015, u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Indrapuram, district Ghaziabad and cognizance order dated 23.12.2015 passed by C.J.M. Ghaziabad and to quash entire proceeding of criminal case no.1283 of 2014, pending before C.J.M. Ghaziabad. 4. 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. The applicant is the father-in-law of opposite party no.2. The son of the applicant and his wife had died. The allegations levelled against the applicant is of operating the locker of opposite party no.2. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the applicant has not filed any authority for operating the locker of opposite party no.2 which was in the name of her husband, her mother-in-law and opposite party no.2. 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 charge sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused. 8. 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 charge sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused. 8. 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. 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.