Allahabad High Court
Ankush Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 October, 2014
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42114 of 2014
Applicant :- Ankush Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 366 of 2014 based on the charge sheet dated 4.12.2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 2013 under section 354Ka, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police station Babina, district Jhansi pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, district Jhansi by which the Magistrate has taken cognizance.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the false allegations made in the FIR dated 11.10.2013 lodged by opposite party no. 2 with the allegation that the applicant tried to outrage the modesty of her and her sister who were in the way. The applicant has also beaten both the sisters and snatched the gold chain and ear-rings and also threatened them of dire consequences. It is further stated that a criminal case (Case Crime No. 143 of 2013) under sections 147, 148, 148, 325, 504, 427 IPC is already pending against the applicant and his family members on the basis of an FIR lodged by the father of opposite party no. 2 and as such the applicant cannot think to commit another offence against opposite party no. 2 and her sister. Submission is that due to village faction, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Hence the prosecution of the applicant being sheer abuse of process of law may be vitiated.
Per contra learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments of the learned AGA for the State, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against the applicant. Cognizance taken by the trial court, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face the trial suffers from no illegality and as such the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
At the state of issuing process of the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Appex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC (Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. PP Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192 where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C
In the result, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused. The application is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30-days from today and apply for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be heard and disposed of in view of decision rendered in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP reported in 2005 Cr.LJ, 755 which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlenfdra Pratap Singh BVs. State of UP (2009) 4 SCC 437. However, the applicant is at liberty to raise any objection in his defence by moving discharge application at appropriate stage which shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.10.2014
SKS
