Allahabad High Court
Sintu @ Ajay Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 June, 2020
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10767 of 2020 Applicant :- Sintu @ Ajay Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the Charge Sheet No. 340 of 2018 dated 9.9.2018 and cognizance order dated 13.2.2019 as well as further proceedings of S.T. No. 07 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2018 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(da) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Saurikh, District- Kannauj, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj.
As per the allegations made in the first information report, it is alleged that on 26.6.2018, the applicants reached at the field of the victim and abused him with the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him in pubic view and also assaulted him by kicks and fists. On account of assault made by the applicants, he has suffered injuries on his person.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants 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 FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, 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 orders as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 judgement 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 applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. 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, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.6.2020 KU