Shahabuddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

On the request of learned counsel for the applicant, another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.05.2011 had referred the matter to mediation centre. The Incharge mediation centre vide its report dated 02.11.2011, had reported that mediation has failed between the parties, copy of which report is on record.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1391 of 2010 (Dhirendra Singh Vs. Shahabuddin), u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnaur, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Najibabad, District Bijnaur.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant 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 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, 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 proceedings is refused.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail, 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 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. 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.