Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32927 of 2018 Applicant :- Anil Agarawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.8.2018 passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No.1, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.77 of 2017 by which the revisional court has rejected the revision and upheld the order of the trial court and impugned summoning order dated 22.12.2016 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.1955 of 2016 by which the accused- applicant has been summoned to face trial including the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.1955 of 2016 under sections 452, 323, 354B, 504, 506 IPC (Sumit Agarwal vs. Akshay Kumar and others), P.S. Aonla, District Bareilly pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Aonla, Bareilly.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the brother of the accused Sanjay Agarwal had earlier lodged FIR against the brother of opposite party no. 2 Mohit being Case Crime No.3260 of 2016 under section 384 IPC in which after being bailed out the accused committed another offence regarding which the brother of the accused-applicant lodged another FIR being Case Crime No.410 of 2016 under section 343, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC on 9.9.2016. As a counter blast to those cases the present complaint case has been filed against the accused applicant. If proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 AU