Allahabad High Court
Paras Nath Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 October, 2019
Author: Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 52 of 2012 Applicant :- Paras Nath Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Shesh Narain Mishra Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by ACJM-II, Court No.10,Basti as well as proceedings of Case No. 838 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2002, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,-IInd, District-Basti.
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. It is next contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in the matter of co-accused namely, Babu Ram Yadav and Brij Bhushan Maurya, this Court had already passed interim orders on 17.09.2009 and 22.03.2010, vide their Criminal Misc. (482) Applications No. 20328 of 2009 and 7962 of 2010.
All the submissions 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.
The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may 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 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 off.
Order Date :- 23.10.2019 IA