Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14668 of 2018
Applicant :- Ajay And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Ravat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal 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 to quash the order dated 17.03.2018, by which the applicants discharge application has been rejected by the learned court below and the entire proceeding of of S.T. No. 131 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 323 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(i) (r), 3(i) (s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Konch, District- Jalaun pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai have been challenged.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out in view of the fact that according to the opposite party no.2 the incident had taken place inside a private godown, away from public view.
That apart, at this stage, there are other offences also alleged against the applicants under Sections 452, 323, 504 , 506 IPC. As to the injury report, learned counsel for the applicants states that those are simple in nature and injury report may have been made procured by the opposite party no.2 only to falsely implicate the applicants.
It is thus submitted that in view of the fact that the offence is not made out under the SC/ST Act, the learned court below has erred in not allowing the discharge application in view of the facts that the entire allegations appear to be false.
Reliance has also been placed on the antecedent of the opposite party against whom the opposite party no.2 had already lodged a complaint alleging molestation of his daughter. It is further submitted that the present prosecution has been lodged by way of a counter blast.
The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, if it were to be accepted, would require appraisal of evidence and would require findings of fact to be recorded. At present on the basis of material relied upon by the prosecution, especially in the shape of the injury report and the supporting statements, it cannot be said that there is no strong suspicion against the applicants with respect to the offences alleged. In such circumstance, the the learned court below does not appear to have erred in rejecting the discharge application at this stage.
However, from 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 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. 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Lbm/-