Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21368 Court No. - 19 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3118 of 2025 Applicant :- Pintu Alias Jay Bharat Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Singh,Harsh Jaiswal,Yogendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the cognizance order dated 08.11.2001 as well as charge sheet dated 19.03.2001 arising out of Case Crime No.16 of 2001, under Section 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Karaudikala, District Sultanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant though argued the matter vehemently, but could not make out a case for quashing of the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He lastly submits that appropriate direction be issued to the Court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922. 5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions 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. 6. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Apex 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. 7. The relief as sought by the applicant is refused. 8. However considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned Court below within four weeks from today, and in case he apply for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the Courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). 9. For the period of four weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned Court below, whichever is earlier, he shall not be arrested in the above case. 10. With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Sattyarth Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench