Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2252 (ALL)

Bunty Gautam v. State of U. P.

2019-09-25

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vivek Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 28.12.2017, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 333, 393, 427, 504, 336 IPC and Sections 2 & 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 section 31(A) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1934, Police Station Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras filed in pursuance of First Information Report dated 03.08.2017 registered as Case Crime No.719 of 2019 in which cognizance has been taken on 13.03.2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1389 of 2018 (State Vs. Jeetu and others) under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 333, 393, 427, 504, 336 IPC and Sections 2 & 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 section 31(A) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1934, Police Station Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras pending before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hathras arising out of Case Crime No.719 of 2017. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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, (1960) AIR SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC(Cri) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, (1992) SCC(Cri) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (2005) SCC(Cri) 283 (Para-10). The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 5. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused. 6. P.P. Sharma, (1992) SCC(Cri) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (2005) SCC(Cri) 283 (Para-10). The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 5. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused. 6. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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., (2004) 57 AllLR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC) For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.