Allahabad High Court
Himanchal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43935 of 2022
Applicant :- Himanchal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Singh,Rishi Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
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 application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2461 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 261 of 2017 under Sections 354, 452,506 IPC, P.S. Jahanabad, district Pilibhit including the charge sheet and summoning order dated 8.7.2019.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.
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 M/s Neeharika Infrastructure PVT Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, 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, lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, State of M.P. Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and others [(2004) 1 SCC 691, and Dr. Monica Kumar and Another Vs State of UP and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 781. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. or 245 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 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 applicants 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, 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).
As such application has no force and is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.3.2023
RavindraKSingh
