Allahabad High Court
Rahat Ali And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 January, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2014 of 2020 Applicant :- Rahat Ali And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balram Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 10.01.2019 relates to charge sheet dated 31.05.2017 as Case No.616 of 2019 (State Vs. Nazma Khatoon & others), arising out of Case Crime No.863 of 2016, under Sections 147, 452, 308, 336, 323, 504, 427, 149, 435 I.P.C., Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants. 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 applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.1.2020 Anand Sri./-