The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, stating disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage. No prima facie case was found lacking. The applicant was instructed to surrender for bail consideration within thirty days.
Prayer for quashment refused. Applicant directed to surrender for bail within thirty days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 627 of 2020 Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Randhir Jain,Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Session Trial No. 182 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2019, under Sections 363,366 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Newdiya, District Jaunpur pending before the 7th Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Jaunpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicant has not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence are lacking. Applicant is neighbour of opposite party no.2. He has been implicated in this case only for harassment. Applicant never took the victim girl on his motorcycle. Main accused is Suraj, against whom offence under Section 376 IPC has also been levelled. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. It is lastly submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
As is evident, 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 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 . From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.
In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicant be given.
Hence, it is observed that in case applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.1.2020/safi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Sections 363, 366 IPC and POCSO Act should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for lack of prima facie case.
Whether the applicant has the right to surrender for bail within thirty days.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra
Om Prakash-VII,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
