Narendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

Narendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the summoning order (09.05.2019), the NBW/Section 82 Cr.P.C. notice order (07.02.2020) and the further proceedings of Session Trial No.937 of 2017 was refused; however, the applicant was directed to appear and surrender before the court below within 10 days and apply for bail, which shall be considered and decided in view of Amrawati v. State of U.P. (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive action for 10 days or till surrender and bail application, whichever earlier, failing which coercive action may follow. Application finally disposed of with these directions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 09.05.2019 summoning the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the order dated 07.02.2020 issuing a non-bailable warrant and notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in Session Trial No.937 of 2017, along with the further proceedings of that trial, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant contending that no offence is disclosed against him and the prosecution is mala fide and intended to cause harassment. +1 more

Court's answer

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused; the submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and at this stage only a prima facie view is to be taken in light of the Supreme Court precedents of R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the A.G.A.'s submission (which the court found to have force), the applicant retains the right to seek discharge through a proper application before the trial court, where he is free to raise all his submissions.

Key takeaways

It is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 10 days and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.ratio¶12
For a period of 10 days from the date of the order, or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant; however, if he does not appear before the court below within that period, coercive action shall be taken against him.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Narendra seeking quashing of (i) the order dated 09.05.2019 by the Additional Session Judge/F.T.C., Court No.1, Aligarh summoning him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for trial under Sections 452/34, 506, 376/34 I.P.C., and (ii) the order dated 07.02.2020 issuing a non-bailable warrant and notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in Session Trial No.937 of 2017 (State Vs. Lauki @ Lokendra), arising from Case Crime No.0064 of 2017, Police Station Pisawa, Aligarh, along with a stay of further proceedings. Held: the prayer for quashing is refused — the contentions raise disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and only a prima facie view is permissible at this stage in light of R.P. Kapur (AIR 1960 SC 866), Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283); the applicant remains free to seek discharge through a proper application before the trial court. The applicant was directed to surrender within 10 days and apply for bail, to be considered per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive action for 10 days or till surrender and bail application, whichever earlier, failing which coercive action may follow. Application finally disposed of (Ajit Singh, J.; order dated 5.8.2020).

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10263 of 2020

Applicant :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Anish,Sajiya Parveen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 09.05.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C., Court No.1, Aligarh, district Aligarh, whereby summoned the applicant under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for trial under Sections 452/34, 506, 376/34 I.P.C. and order dated 07.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C., Court No.1, Aligarh, district Aligarh in Session Trial No.937 of 2017 (State Vs. Lauki @ Lokendra), under Sections 452, 376, 506 I.P.C., Case Crime No.0064 of 2017, Police Station Pisawa Aligarh, district Aligarh, whereby non-bailable warrant as well as notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid Session Trial along with order dated 09.05.2019 and 07.02.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Court No.1, Aligarh district Aligarh.

The contention of learned 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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that 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 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 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. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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 (Para10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused can not be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right to discharge 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 submission made by learned A.G.A. have force.

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 10 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 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 10 days from today or till applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant. However, in case, 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 of.

Order Date :- 5.8.2020

R./