Ram Veer Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2011 Latest Caselaw 2975 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 54
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23165 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Veer Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Shukla
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the  proceedings of complaint case no 103 of 2009 under sections 376, 511, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1)(X) SC/ST Acct pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras and also for quashing of the summoning order dated 07.04.2010.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence under section 376 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act is made out by  bare reading of the complaint and therefore, criminal prosecution of the applicant is bad in law.  

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 right of discharge under Section 239 or 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may 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 and the summoning order is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of 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., after hearing the Public Prosecutor. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail 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.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 25.7.2011

yachna