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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing prayer refused; applicant directed to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days, failing which no further time; bail application to be considered and decided in view of settled law; no coercive action against the applicant for 30 days.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1902 of 2019, arising out of Crime No. 0721 of 2018 under Section 3/7 E.C. Act (Police Station Aonla, district Bareilly), pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly, are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and whether the proceedings should be stayed. +1 more

Court's answer

On a perusal of the material available on record and the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that the offences levelled against the applicant are not made out.

Ratio / Principle

All the submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Key takeaways

At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical; accordingly, the prayer made in the application is refused.ratio¶9
In case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days, the bail application shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law.ratio¶11
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under S.482 Cr.P.C. by Sheela Devi seeking quashing of the charge sheet and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1902 of 2019 (arising out of Crime No. 0721 of 2018, u/s 3/7 E.C. Act, P.S. Aonla, district Bareilly) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly, together with a stay of proceedings. Held: on the material on record it cannot be said at this stage that the offences levelled against the applicant are not made out; the submissions raised disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under S.482 Cr.P.C.; only a prima facie case falls to be seen in the light of the law laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (Para 10) (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283); the quashing prayer was refused. The Court directed that if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within 30 days the bail application shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law, that no coercive action be taken against her for 30 days, and that no further time be allowed for surrender. Application disposed of (Om Prakash-VII, J.; order dated 18.2.2020).

Court No. - 78

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3856 of 2020

Applicant :- Sheela Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case no. 1902 of 2019 arising out of crime no. 0721 of 2018, under Section 3/7 E. C. Act, Police Station Aonla, district Bareillly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicant had not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of the contention.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer.

From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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 (Para 10) 2005 SCC (Cr. ) 283. The prayer made in the application is refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the Court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

Hence it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicant. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 18.2.2020

Sachdeva