Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43322 of 2018 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kaustubh Srivastava,Kandarp Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.298 of 2018 (Sushila Vs. Ajay Kumar and others), under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 354 IPC, Police Station Zafarabad, District Jaunpur as well as impugned summoning order dated 9.8.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vth, Court No.16, Jaunpur.
The contention of the 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 that both the parties are next door neighbours. Opposite party No.2 is a very ill tempered and quarrelsome lady. It is next contended that a day earlier to the alleged incident, there had been an altercation and scuffle between the opposite party No.2 and ladies of the house of the applicant Nos. 1 to 3.
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 in exercise of power conferred 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment 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 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.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018/AK Pandey