Allahabad High Court
Sanatan Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 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. - 44653 of 2019 Applicant :- Sanatan Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sheshadri Trivedi,Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi,Satish Trivedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Abhishek Tripathi, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri P.K. Shahi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 20.11.2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 308, 504, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Gadwar, District Ballia, arising out of Case Crime No.154 of 2017 (registered as case no.1329 of 2019) and entire proceedings of Case No.1329 of 2019 (State Vs. Someshwar Pandey & others), pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. -IInd, Ballia.
The contention of learned 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 purpose of causing harassment. 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.
From a 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 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.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
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 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, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Anand Sri./-