Allahabad High Court
Jagesh Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 February, 2021
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2684 of 2021 Applicant :- Jagesh Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Manish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet No.336 of 2019 dated 11.12.2019 and cognizance order dated 16.10.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 193 of 2020 (State vs. Sukhveer Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Asmauli, District-Sambhal, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi at Sambhal.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is mother-in-law of opposite party no.2. In the F.I.R., there are serious allegations levelled against the applicant of beating the victim, due to which, she has sustained injuries. Injuries report also goes to show that the victim has sustained serious injures. It has further been submitted that the applicant has been granted interim bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2019 passed in Cri. Misc. Bail Application No.- 45017 of 2019 (Smt Jagesh Devi vs. State of U.P.), copy of which has been annexed as Annexure no.5 to this application. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
4. 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.
5. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
6. 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, if possible on the same day, 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.
7. For a period of 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 JK Yadav