Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29594 of 2018 Applicant :- Amit Maurya And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 13.4.2018 passed by Additional District Judge-IV, Jaunpur in Criminal Complaint No.270 of 2017 (Sahab Lal Vs. Amit Maurya and another), under Sections 323, 392, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)x S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur as well as the entire proceedings.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants have been falsely implicated over a petty dispute between children in which both parties reached to compromise before Panchayat as stated in para 9 of the affidavit; that for the alleged incident dated 30.12.2013 the application for lodging F.I.R. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved with inordinate delay of 15 days on 15.1.2014 which was treated as complaint vide order dated 25.2.2014 and after recording the statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 7.11.2014 and of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 12.2.2015 the learned trial court has acted wrongly in issuing process against applicants under Sections 323, 392, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)x S.C./S.T. Act; that in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as complaint the opposite party no.2 has not disclosed the old enmity and mere mention of old enmity is not enough; that learned trial court without applying its mind has taken cognizance in mechanical manner and passed the impugned order dated 13.4.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State contended that the opposite party no.2 has stated to have approached the Police Station and from where the medical of his wife was got conducted but no F.I.R. was lodged so he moved the application to Superintendent of Police on 1.1.2014 and when no action was taken he moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upon which too no F.I.R. was lodged rather it was treated as complaint; that in complaint case the Magistrate has adopted the procedure laid down by Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. and has rightly taken cognizance.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that as per provisions of Chapter XV of Cr.P.C., upon filing of complaint, the Court followed the procedure laid down in above Chapter of Code of Criminal Procedure and after recording the statements of complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. if it finds that there is no prima facie evidence of the offence, it shall reject the complaint under the provisions of section 203 Cr.P.C. and if it finds sufficient evidence of offence, shall take cognizance of the offence and issue process against the accused under section 204 Cr.P.C.
Perusal of material on record shows that learned Judge after recording the statements of complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has found that there is prima facie sufficient evidence of the offence in question and has accordingly rightly taken cognizance and issued process.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicants have failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or sufficient ground which requires exercise of inherent powers by this Court in order to secure the ends of justice. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, accordingly.
However, if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within one month from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Kpy