Allahabad High Court
Julfikar vs State Of U.P. on 17 January, 2020
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2088 of 2020 Applicant :- Julfikar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.39 of 2020 (State Vs. Julfikar), under Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, Police Station Singhawali Aheer, District Baghpat As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had been found to be involved in illegal mining of soil and he is also the owner of JCB Machine, in question.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, impugned order and entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
Moreover, 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 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the impugned order and entire proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. 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 observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.1.2020 Nadim