Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 23.11.2008 by means of which the final report has been rejected and the protest petition has been allowed by summoning all the five petitioners under Sections 323, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Lambhua, District Sultanpur.
The perusal of the order shows that statement of complainant Meera Devi, witnesses Daya Shanker Upadhyay, Shiv Shanker Upadhyay and Ram Sabd were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and all of them had supported the accusations in respect of the aforesaid sections. But the investigating officer submitted final report merely on the ground that lady herself has returned her Sindur to the members of the family of in- laws and that the husband had filed divorce case and that in the circumstances the lady was not willing to live with them. The learned C.J.M. has rightly observed that these points are subject matter of the evidence. On the other hand there is evidence of the complainant and witnesses supported by medical evidence and therefore, he found that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out. Finally, therefore, he passed the order.
I regret in not finding any flaw in the aforesaid order. There is no justification to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. Therefore, this order cannot be quashed.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners being law abiding citizens intend to participate in the proceedings by appearing before the court below. It is also pointed out that the offences are not of grave nature and are triable by magistrate. In view of the above, it is hereby directed that if the applicants appear before the court below and apply for bail within one month from today, the court(s) below shall dispose of the application expeditiously preferably on the same day, if possible, in accordance with the observations made in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 CBC page 705. Thereafter, the trial court may permit the applicants/petitioners to appear through counsel and raise their objection, if any, against the initiation of trial proceedings against them at the stage of framing of charges. This relief is being granted up to the stage of framing of charges only provided the applicants after securing bail (1) furnish an undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial court that their counsel will remain present on their behalf and will represent them on each and every date, (2) They will not raise any objection as to the actual presence of the person who is facing trial, (3) an undertaking will also be given to the effect that they will be present before the court whenever called upon to do so at any stage. These directions are being accorded in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited, reported in 2001 Crl. Law Journal page 4250.
With these observations this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010 ML/-