Allahabad High Court
Ravendra vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41888 of 2019
Applicant :- Ravendra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 75 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2018, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Sakrauli, District- Etah pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Etah including the charge-sheet dated 18th February, 2019 against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and from the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., no case under Sections 363 and 366 Cr.P.C. is made out against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.
As per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no allegation against the applicant but in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has developed and levelled allegations against the applicant.
From the perusal of 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 submissions 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 and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicant approaches the trial court for bail through counsel, same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).
In view of the aforesaid, the present application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.4.2023
Krishna*
