Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15489 of 2019 Applicant :- Anil Sahlot And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 02.01.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2649 of 2018 (Rajkumar v. Anil Sahlot and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Sikandrabad, District - Bulandshahar.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that Omveer Singh, brother of opposite party no. 2 Rajkumar Bhati was an employee in the institute of the applicants. The applicants had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Omveer Singh. In counterblast, opposite party no. 2 Rajkumar Bhati has lodged this complaint maliciously, with false allegation, only to harass the applicants. As per version of the complaint, applicant no. 1 Anil Sahlot fired, but none has sustained any injury. Learned Magistrate found the allegation of firing to be false. None from the side of opposite party no. 2 has sustained any injury or has been medically examined. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of proceedings and passing of the impugned summoning order by the court below.
As per provision of Section 245(2) of the Code, alternative remedy is available to the applicants to get themselves discharged by the trial court. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass any order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as the summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
It is further directed that in case the applicants appear before the court below and file discharge application under Section 245(2) of the Code through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.
Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 I. Batabyal