Brij Nath Singh @ B.N. Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another

Hon''ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the prayer. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case crime No. 156 of 2010 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kerakat, District Jaunpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Jaunpur.

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 facts, 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 v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. 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 he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

However, it is directed that if 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 ofAmrawati and another v. 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 v. State of U.P. 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.

It is further provided that in case the applicant moves an application for discharge along with certified copy of this order before the court concerned, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law at appropriate stage. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.