Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 December, 2019
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42557 of 2019 Applicant :- Gaurav Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tapesh Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Tapesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings, summoning order dated 27th March, 2018 and the order issuing bailable warrant dated 18th July, 2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 289 of 2017 (State Vs. Bahgwan Das & ORs.) arising out of Case Crime No. 205 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Tajganj, District-Agra.
3. Before considering the present application on merits by the Court, Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present application by submitting that this is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case along with summoning order and order issuing bailable order against the applicants. The applicant had earlier approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26153 of 2018 (Gaurav Gupta and Ors. VS. State of U.P. & Another), which has been disposed of vide order dated 8th August, 2018, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. In view of the aforesaid, the learned A.G.A. submits that this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the first application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant, on 8th August, 2018, following order has been passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State.
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 08.11.2012, cognizance order dated 01.06.2013 as well as entire proceedings of Case no.2476/IX of 2013, State vs. Gaurav Gupta and another (arising out of Case Crime no.205 of 2012), under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura now pending before the court of IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.
On perusal of the impugned charge sheet and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicants, on the basis of which the impugned charge sheet can be quashed going by the settled law in 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is refused.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender 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, the application is finally disposed of. "
5. In view of the aforesaid, this second bail application for quashing of the same criminal case is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Sushil/-