Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4791 of 2019 Revisionist :- Akhilesh And 2 Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Chitrakoot in Special Session Trial No.29 of 2008 (State Vs. Ganesh Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.150 of 2007, under Sections 452, 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Manikpur, District Chitrakoot, whereby the application of opposite party no.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the revisionists were summoned.
The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that no offence against the revisionists 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. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionists involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
From a 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 revisionists. 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 revisionists appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days 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.
For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the revisionists in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019
Anand Sri./-