AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surendra Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record.
The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to stay the proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 3849/2009 State Vs. Menhaj Ahmad and others under Section 452, 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. pending in the court of learned ACJ (J.D.) IV, Lucknow including the impugned charge sheet No. 212/2009 (Annexure no. 1 and 2).
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.
From the perusal of 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 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 Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426, State of Bihar versus P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cr) 192, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works LTD. versus Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another (Para 10), 2005 SCC (Cr.)283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge at appropriate stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as chargesheet is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear or surrender before the courts below within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges'' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Versus State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR290 (affirmed by Hon''ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P.) and the case of Sukhwant Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2009 Vol. VII, SCC 559, after hearing the Public Prosecutor. For a period of three weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, it is open to the court below to adopt proper recourse of law against them.
With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of finally.