Bhupendra & Others vs State Of U P & Another

Court No. - 40

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34698 of 2017

Applicant :- Bhupendra & 4 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Kandarp Srivastava,Kaustubh Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The applicants, through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 22.06.2017 in Criminal Case No. 5774 of 2017 (State Vs. Banti and others) whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar has taken cognizance under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 325, 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against the applicants in Case Crime No. 239 of 2016.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that both the sides have lodged F.I.R. He further submitted that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution have been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

Per contra learned AGA submitted that from the perusal of the 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. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions 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 applicants have got a right of discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The submissions made by learned AGA have force.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case and the chargesheet is refused.

After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. this application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, then their bail application shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 which has been affirmed 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).

Order Date :- 3.11.2017 SA