Allahabad High Court
Sandeep vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 July, 2021
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18796 of 2020
Applicant :- Sandeep
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 17.04.2020, summoning order dated 14.10.2020 and its consequential proceedings of Case No. 1244 of 2020 (State Vs. Kashmira), arising out of Case Crime No. 111 of 2000, under Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. IInd, Saharanpur.
As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the applicant is obstructing in construction of the road and is creating hindrance.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant, as such, impugned charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/ surrenders before the court below within one month from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of one month from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. 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 observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021
Nadim
