Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 155 (ALL)

Deshraj Patel v. State Of U. P.

2020-01-14

ALI ZAMIN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Ali Zamin, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.4514 of 2019 (State Vs. Deshraj Patel and others) pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi arising out of Crime No. 192 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Puramuft, District Kaushambi as well as impugned charge sheet dated 14.07.2019 and cognizance order dated 06.11.2019. 3. Sri Vikas Rastogi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Arjun Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report by the opposite party was lodged on 12.06.2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and after investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. Applicant and opposite party no.2 has business rivalry and both do business of tent in the same market. As per first information report a dispute occurred for taking water from a pump, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the case due to business rivalry. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposes this application and submits that after investigation charge sheet has been submitted. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are to be decided by the trial court. 5. 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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. 6. 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. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the proceeding of aforementioned case as well as charge sheet dated 14.07.2019, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. 7. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 8. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application 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 him. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.