Neerendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

Another Bench of this Court vide its order dated 17.08.998 had issued notice to the opposite party No. 2 and in the meantime stayed the further proceedings of Case No. 39 of 1998, under Sections 387, 323, 504 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, pending before learned Special Judge, (D.A.A.), Jhansi.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 21.04.1998 as well as for quashing of proceedings of Case No. 39 of 1998, under Sections 387, 323, 504 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, pending before learned Special Judge, (D.A.A.), Jhansi.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that from a bare perusal of the F.I.R., as well as statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., would demonstrates that no offence u/s 387 I.P.C., is made out against the applicant. It is further contended 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 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 (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Anr. (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 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 227/228 or 245 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 charge sheet as well as proceedings is refused.

Interim order dated 17.08.1998 is hereby vacated.

However, it is directed that the applicant shall appear and surrender 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 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 (SC) 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.

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