Anil And Another vs. State Of U.P.And Another

Held

The Court held that at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court relied on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426) to determine if a prima facie case exists. The disputed defence of the applicants cannot be considered at this stage. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet was refused. However, considering the nature of allegations and submissions, the Court directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the concerned court within thirty days and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously. No coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of 30 days or until the disposal of their bail application, whichever is earlier. If the applicants fail to appear within the stipulated period, coercive action may be taken.

Facts

The applicants, Anil and another, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash proceedings and a charge sheet dated May 22, 2019. These proceedings stemmed from GST No. 21 of 2019, which arose out of Case Crime No. 290 of 2017 under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Prevention and Anti-Social Activities Act. The applicants claimed innocence, false implication, and malafide intention behind the prosecution. The charge sheet was filed in the court of the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Banda.

Key Issues

1. Whether the entire proceedings and charge sheet dated 22.5.2019 in GST No. 21 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 290 of 2017 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Prevention and Anti-Social Activities Act, are liable to be quashed on the ground that no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the prosecution is instituted with malafide intention for harassment. (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 482 Cr.P.C. and principles of quashing proceedings). Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: Argued that they are innocent, falsely implicated, and that the prosecution lacks merit and is motivated by malafide intention. They contended that no offence is disclosed against them. Revenue/State: No specific arguments are recorded for the State in the judgment regarding the merits of the quashing application.