High CourtsSingle Bench

Hridesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 28 September 2010 · Citation: (2010) 09 AHC CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Dayal Khare, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 227, 228, 239, 245(2), 482 · Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Section 3, 7
CASE NUMBER
Application No. 30215 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 511 words

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2.

The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet filed in criminal case No. 2471 of 2008 u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Bisauli, District Badaun.

3.

Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant today and in para 4 thereof, it has been stated that the applicants came to know of the filing of the chargesheet only in May, 2010, when the police came to their house with the copy of the summons. Therefore, it is submitted that there are no latches on behalf of the applicant in filing the present application.

4.

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.

5.

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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Anr. (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got right of discharge u/s 239 or 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may 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.

6.

The prayer for quashing the chargesheet is refused.

7.

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges'' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as Judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, 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.

8.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.