1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Suresh Chandra And Others vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|08 November, 2017
Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36616 of 2017 Applicant :- Suresh Chandra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Mehta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned G.A.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.647 of 2017 (State Of U.P. Vs. Suresh Chandra and others), Case Crime No.335 of 2017, under Sections 427, 436, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah pending in the court of A.C.J.M., I, Etawah.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is 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 GA 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 GA have force.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
At this stage the learned counsel for the applicants made a prayer that the bail application of the applicants in aforesaid case be ordered to be considered expeditiously, if possible on the same day by the Court below.
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 60 days 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 2004 (57) ALR-290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (322) (SC) after hearing the Public Prosecutor in the aforesaid crime number for the aforesaid offences.
Order Date :- 8.11.2017 Vivek Kr.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
  • Sunil Kumar Mehta