Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Dr. Asharfi Lal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 9 August, 2010
Court No. - 45

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3896 of 1996

Petitioner :- Dr. Asharfi Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- J.S.Sengar
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,S.N. Srivastava

Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.

List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the applicant.
Learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of the State respondent.

This Court vide order dated 26.9.1996 had issued notice to
opposite party no. 3 and stayed the proceedings of Case No.
245/1995, under Sections 306, 511, 504 I.P.C., pending before the
court below. Counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no. 3
had been filed which is on record but no rejoinder affidavit has
been filed on behalf of the applicant till date.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application was filed for quashing of the
charge-sheet dated 20.12.1995 in Case No. 245/1995, under
Sections 306, 511, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabganj, District Kanpur
Nagar.

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 relates to the disputed question 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 have got right of discharge under
Section 239, 245(2) or 227/228 or 245(2), Cr.P.C. as the case may
through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free
to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before
the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders
before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for
bail, his 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 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 do not appear before the Court below within the
aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this 482 application is disposed of.
Interim order dated 26.9.1996 is hereby vacated.

Registry of this Court will inform the order to the court concerned
forthwith.

Order Date :- 9.8.2010
Meenu


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.161 seconds.