Ghanshaym & 9 Others vs State Of U.P. & Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 3764 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 48
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27729 of 2017
 
Applicant :- Ghanshaym & 9 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.696 of 2015, Rameshwar Pandey Vs.Chinkan and others, under Section 504, 452, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Uska Bazar,  District Sidharthnagar as well as summoning order dated 11.7.2017 passed by A.C.J.M/ F.T.C. District Sidharthnagar.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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.

The prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 11.7.2017 as well as entire proceedings of the aforementioned case is hereby refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

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

Order Date :- 29.8.2017/Gss