High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 AHC CK 0044

Brijesh Singh @ Guddu Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 14 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Dayal Khare, J
CASE NUMBER
Application U/S 482 No. 27745 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 445 words

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

2.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 5219 of 2009 (Sharmawati Devi v. Brijesh Singh alias Guddu Singh) under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Ahiraula, District Azamgarh, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, District Azamgarh as well as for quashing of the summmoning order dated 16.04.2010.,

3.

The contention of the 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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

4.

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 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. Sarafu Haq and Anr. (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.

5.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as summoning order is refused.

6.

However, since all the charged sections are bailable, it is provided that if the applicant appears before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, if possible on the same day by the Court below. 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.

7.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.