Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 639 (ALL)

Mishri Lal Yadav v. State of U. P.

2020-02-28

RAJ BEER SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 1207 of 2017 State Vs. Mishri Lal, Case Crime NO. 454 of 2013 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Mau Aima, District Allahabad pending before the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and to quash the charge sheet no.44 of 2013 dated 17.12.2013. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. of impugned case has been lodged on false and baseless allegations. It was further submitted 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. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A., has opposed the application and submitted that from the perusal of the material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. 5. From perusal of 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. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 6. The prayer as sought above is hereby refused. 7. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 6. The prayer as sought above is hereby refused. 7. However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below and applies for bail within a period of one month from today, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of one month from today or till the applicant surrender before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of finally.