Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 358 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar @ Jhallu Mishra v. State of U. P.

2021-03-05

NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI

body2021
JUDGMENT : NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J. 1. Heard applicant-2, Ram Sanehi @ Paalu Mishra in persons on behalf of applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 07.02.2017 and summoning order dated 01.02.2021 in S.T. No. 409 of 2019 arising out of Crime No. 11/2017 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act 1989 registered at P.S. Mohammdi District Kheri. 3. 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 submissions made 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 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, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 4. No case for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings as well as to stay the operation of summoning order is made out and, as such, the prayer is rejected. 5. At this stage, applicant No. 2 (in person) has submitted that the applicants are going to appear before the court concerned and move their bail applications. Since the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the case of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, a direction be issued to the court concerned for disposal of the bail applications. 6. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that if applicants move surrender applications before court concerned within two weeks from today, their bail applications shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). 7. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.