Arvind Kumar @ Guddu vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 02.08.2008 and 23.08.2011 passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Shahjahanpur passed in Case No. 29 of 2008 (State v Rishi Pal Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2006, under sections 147, 148, 364-A IPC and 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Allahganj, District Shahjahanpur as well as for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in the case.

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.

From the 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 u/s 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. The State of Punjab, , 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.

Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge u/s 239 or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the aforesaid orders along with the entire criminal proceeding is refused. However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and 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 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 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) for a period of 30 days from today 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 of.