Pankaj Sharma And Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

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

The present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Pankaj Sharma and others against State of U.P. and others with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 13 of 2018 dated 26.3.2018, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of Case Crime No. 05 of 2018 of police station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 60390 of 2018 (State Vs. Pankaj Sharma and others) pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar..

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that a false FIR has been lodged by informant Smt. Situ Sharma against her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. They have been falsely implicated and charge sheeted against the evidence on record over which cognizance has been taken. It is clear cut of abuse of process of law, hence this application has been filed.

Learned A.G.A. opposed.

From the very perusal of the FIR it reveals that present applicants were accused in it and the same contention is of informant Situ Sharma in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. which is with corroboration of statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, hence on the basis of evidence collected in charge sheet and case diary which is part of above offence was filed over which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

The prayer for quashing the proceeding as well as the charge sheet is hereby refused.

However, it is provided that in case, the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 30 days from today 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, coercive action shall be taken against them..

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