Mahendra Singh Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 4713 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 68
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33483 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Yadav And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Tripathi,Rajeev Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

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

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire proceeding in pursuance of charge sheet dated 28.3.2019 as well as impugned summoning order dated 18.8.2020 in Case No. 6090 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 434 of 2018, (State Vs. Mahendra Singh & Another), under sections 420, 471, 506 IPC and 37 U. P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976, P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. The applicant no. 2 is wife of the applicant no. 1.

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 no. 2 has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and he is 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 and summoning order is hereby refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant no. 1 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 no. 1 approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).

However, the applicant no. 2 Smt. Shyam Shri is directed to appear before the trial court through counsel and she is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court which shall be considered and disposed of by the trial court in accordance with law within a period of two months.

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 13.2.2023

A.