Back
2016 Supreme(All) 2213
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Om Prakash-VII, J.
Yashwant Singh And 2 Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And Another - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. - 9002 of 2016
Decided On : 28-03-2016
For the Petitioner: Shashi Prakash Rai.
For the Respondent: G.A.
At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., only a prima facie case is to be seen, and the disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon. The applicants were directed to surrender before the court within 30 days, and their prayer for bail would be considered and decided in view of settled law.
Headnote:
Non-Bailable Warrant - Quashing of Warrant - The court refused to quash the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants, citing that at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, and the disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicants were directed to surrender before the court within 30 days, and their prayer for bail would be considered and decided in view of settled law.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against them in a case involving offences under Sections 143, 268, 427 IPC and 3/5 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to quash the non-bailable warrant, stating that at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, and the disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicants were directed to surrender before the court within 30 days, and their prayer for bail would be considered and decided in view of settled law.
Issues: The main issue was the quashing of the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi: At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen, and the disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicants were directed to surrender before the court within 30 days, and their prayer for bail would be considered and decided in view of settled law.
Final Decision: The present application to quash the non-bailable warrant was dismissed by the court.
Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with prayer to quash/set aside the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 28.8.2012 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh in Case no. 9059 of 2015 (Case Crime No. 240 of 2010) under Sections 143, 268, 427 IPC and 3/5 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police station Meh Nagar, District Azamgarh.
3. Applicants have earlier approached before this Court taking recourse of the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1715 of 2012 and this Court vide order dated 16.1.2012 passed the following order: -
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
"This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 8.5.2011 submitted in case crime no. 240 of 2010 on which the learned Civil Judge(J.D.), Court No. 27, Azamgarh has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 268, 427 I.P.C. and 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Mehnagar, district Azamgarh in case no. 1845 of 2010 as well as the proceeding of the aforementioned case.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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.
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 applicants. All the submission 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 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. Moreover, the applicants has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, 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.
The prayer for quashing the chargesheet as well as the proceeding of the aforementioned case is refused.
However, it is directed 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 shall 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."
5. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that present application has been filed with the prayer to quash non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the parties, keeping in view, the order passed by this Court in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1715 of 2012 and the conduct of the parties, no ground is made out to exercise the jurisdiction u
