Allahabad High Court
Rohit Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home & Another on 21 October, 2020
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?In Chamber Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2339 of 2020 Applicant :- Rohit Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Amir Khan,Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing in terms of orders issued by Hon'ble Chief Justice taking into consideration the COVID-19 situation.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the Charge Sheet No.253 of 2019 dated 08.12.2019 as well as summoning order dated 13.03.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Sitapur in Case No.100 of 2020, Crime No.292 of 2019 under Sections 272, 273, 420 IPC and 60/63 Excise Act, Police Station Kamlapur, District Sitapur titled as State vs. Avadhesh Verma and others.
The contention of the 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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be 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 prayer for quashing the charge sheet and summoning order is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment 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 the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the 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 :- 21.10.2020 A. Katiyar