Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2727 (ALL)

Chotey Lal Gangwar v. State of U P

2019-12-06

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the proceedings of Case No. 8005898 of 2019 and charge sheet No.58/03 dated 19.08.2003 arising out of Crime No. 356 of 2000, under Sections- 406, 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the Court of Special Judge/ M.L.A./A. D.J.-I, Bareilly. 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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence. 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 at this stage. 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, (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). 5. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused. 6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 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., 2004 57 AllLR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). 7. For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. 8. State of U.P., 2004 57 AllLR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). 7. For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.