Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned revisional order dated 19.2.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge Sultanpur passed in Criminal Revision No.273/2019 (Anil Kumar Tewari Versus State of U.P.& another) as well as impugned summoning order dated 16.8.2018 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.18 Sultanpur thereby summoning the petitioner under section 420 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Motigarpur District-Sultanpur in Complaint Case No. 1016/2017) and also dismissed the Complaint No.1016/201 (Santosh Kumar Sharma Versus Anil Kumnar & others) pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 18 Sultanpur.
It is submitted that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the summoning order whereby the petitioner was summoned be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicants on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
From the 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings 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 the 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, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the revisional order as well as summoning order are hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the petitioner appear and surrender before the Court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, say within a period of seven days, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Madhu