Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Kumar Pandey & Others vs Union Of India & Another on 9 August, 2010
Court No. - 45 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 552 of 1995 Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Pandey & Others Respondent :- Union Of India & Another Petitioner Counsel :- A.K. Gupta Respondent Counsel :- A.G.A.,Ashok Kumar,Shekhar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
List revised. None appears to press the present petition on behalf of the applicants. Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Union of India is present.
This Court vide order dated 15.05.1995 had issued notice to the opposite party no. 1 and meanwhile proceedings of criminal case no. 1176 of 1986 (Union of India Vs. M/s. Vindhya Metal Corporation and others) pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Allahabad were stayed. Till date, no counter affidavit has been filed.
The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint case no. 1176 of 1986 (Union of India Vs. M/s Vindhya Metal Corporation and others) pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Allahabad.
The contention on behalf of the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Certain documents and statements have been appended in support of the contention.
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. All the submission 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 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 right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the complaint case is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However in case the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. Interim order dated 15.05.1995 is hereby vacated.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order of this Court to the court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 9.8.2010 yachna