Sanju and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the applicants 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 entire criminal proceeding in case crime No. 316 of 2010 (State v Sanju & others), under sections 452, 324, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Mursan, District Hathras pending in the court of the IIIAdditional Civil Judge, Hathras on which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences.

The contention of the 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 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 applicants. 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 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 applicants have got a right of discharge under Sections 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 entire criminal proceeding is refused. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 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 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.