Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 483 (ALL)

Parveen v. State of U. P.

2017-02-09

BACHCHOO LAL

body2017
JUDGMENT BachchooLal,J. Sri QaziVakil Ahmad, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opp. party no. 2 be taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2, 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 impugned chargesheet dated 13.8.2014 in case crime no. 285 of 2013, under section 498-A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana District Kanpur Nagar ( annexure-4). The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is married nanad of opp. party no. 2 and marriage of the applicant was solemnized in the year 2000 and the appliant is living at Lucknow with her husband. She has no concern with he alleged incident. There is general allegation agaisnt the applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. She has been falsely implicated in this case only for the purpose of harassment. On the other hand learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 argued that the applicant is named in the first information report. There is specific allegation against the applicant. The I.O. after collecting the evidence submitted chargesheet against the applicant and other co accused. There is no ground to quash the charge sheet of aforementioned case. 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. SarafulHaq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The prayer for quashing the chargesheet of the aforementioned case is refused. 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. SarafulHaq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The prayer for quashing the chargesheet of the aforementioned case is 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 KamlendraPratap 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.