HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 4248 of 2014 Applicant :- Kaushlendra Pratap Mishra Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.277 of 2013, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S.-Maharajganj, District-Rae Bareli pending before the A.C.J.M-II, court no. 11, Rae Bareli as well as the summoning order dated 15.6.2013.
The contention of the 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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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, 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 under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case and the summoning order is refused.
However, it is directed that if 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. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.11.2015 Faridul