Allahabad High Court
Vivek Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 10 February, 2020
Author: Ajit Singh
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5641 of 2020 Applicant :- Vivek Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Komal Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 14.09.2018 and the proceedings of Case No.1012 of 2018 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Varanasi in Case Crime No.118 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra learned A.G.A. 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 applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the 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 can not be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right to 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 submission made by learned A.G.A. have force.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by 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 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant. However, in case, applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.2.2020 R./