Allahabad High Court
Shiv Nath And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:36223
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38279 of 2023
Applicant :- Shiv Nath And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jaybrat Dwivedi,Ram Swaroop (Singh),Shivakant Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipin Kumar Kushwaha
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri R.S. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Neelkanth Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri V.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the material available on record. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. no.2 is taken on record.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing charge sheet dated 01.04.2022, cognizance order dated 02.02.2023 and the entire proceedings of Case No.8482 of 2023 (State Vs. @@ Sandeep and others) arising out of Case Crime No.590 of 2021, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Rasulabad, District-Kanpur Dehat pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime Against Woman), Kanur Dehat.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 22.10.2021 an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 against the applicant and others with an allegation that when O.P. no.2 was busy in taking care of animals at the door of her house, accused persons came there, molested her and also torn her clothes. In the FIR further allegation is that applicant no.1 attacked O.P. no.2 with an axe due to which she sustained grievous injury, and both the applicants herein also snatched her ornaments. He further submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case just to pressurize and harass them, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged against them. He further submits that no offences against the applicants are disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. no.2 vehemently oppose the present application and contend that the trial court has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the charge sheet dated 01.04.2022, cognizance order dated 02.02.2023 and the proceedings of the trial case.
5. 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 applicants. 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 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 applicants have got a right of discharge before the court below and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
6. The prayer for quashing charge sheet dated 01.04.2022, cognizance order dated 02.02.2023 and the entire proceedings of the above mentioned case is hereby refused.
7. 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 applicants in view of the judgment in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
8. 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 applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
9. However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
10. With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 29.2.2024
Manish Himwan
