Harendra Singh vs. State Of Up Thgh Principal Secretary Home Gov Of Up And Another

Held

The Court refused to quash the impugned order at this stage. The reasoning was that the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant involved factual disputes and required an appraisal of evidence, which are not suitable for determination in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application. However, considering the nature of the alleged offence and the facts and circumstances, the Court directed that if the applicant appears before the court below within two weeks from the date of the order and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided in accordance with the law. The non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant was ordered to be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks.

Facts

The applicant, Harendra Singh, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, District Firozabad. This order arose from Gangster Special Trial (GST) No. 968 of 2012, State Vs. Pankaj and another, concerning Case Crime No. 52 of 2012 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Fariha, District Firozabad. The applicant contended that no offence was disclosed against him and that the prosecution was initiated with malafide intention to cause harassment, supported by certain documents and statements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment to the applicant, thereby warranting quashing of the impugned order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Argument: The learned counsel for the applicant argued that no offence is disclosed against the applicant and that the prosecution is motivated by malafide intentions and aimed at harassment. The applicant relied on certain documents and statements to support these claims. Revenue's Argument: The learned A.G.A. for the State did not present any specific arguments in the judgment, but the Court's reasoning implies that the State would contest the applicant's claims regarding malafide intention and lack of disclosure of an offence.