Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18074 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt Anuradha Upadhyay And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dutta Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicants seeking the quashing of order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi whereby the final report has been rejected and the cognizance has been taken and order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi whereby non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants in Case Crime No.392 of 2015 (Rupa Devi vs. Sewa Lal and others), u/s 376D, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C., P.S.-Pipri, District-Kaushambi.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
So far as the case relating to applicant no.1 Smt. Anuradha Upadhyay is concerned, the matter requires consideration on facts and law both.
Notice on behalf of opposite party No.1 has been accepted by learned AGA.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks.
Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within three weeks after the service. Learned AGA may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this matter immediately with regard to applicant no.1 after expiry of the aforesaid period before the appropriate bench.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of aforesaid case crime with regard to applicant no.1 Smt. Anuradha Upadhyay, shall remain stayed.
So far as the case with regard to applicant nos.2 to 7 is concerned, the counsel for the applicants has not been able to point out any such flaw or element of perversity in the impugned orders which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. There is no illegality or any abuse of court's process reflected in the impugned orders. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into by the court below. After submission of the final report there are many options open before the Magistrate, he can reject the final report and differ with the inference drawn by the Investigating Officer. But at the same time if in his opinion there is sufficient material available in the case diary on the basis of which the cognizance may be taken he can well take cognizance on the material contained in the case diary and proceed with the matter as a State case taking cognizance u/s 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. It is also possible that he may accept the final report if he agrees with the inference drawn by the Investigation Officer. Another option open before the Magistrate is that he may treat the protest petition as a complaint and may proceed in the matter as a complaint case. Yet another option is that if he feels that the matter deserves some further investigation he can proceed to make the same order and ask the Investigating Officer to undertake further investigation into the case and submit his report.
It is obvious from the perusal of the impugned orders that what has been done by the Magistrate, so far as the case of applicant nos.2 to 7 is concerned, it is perfectly within the permissible legal ambit of his powers and there is nothing illegal about the same on the basis of which the impugned orders may be castigated. This court does not feel inclined to substitute the discretion exercised by the court below by its own, and therefore, the quashing of impugned orders is refused so far as applicant nos.2 to 7 are concerned.
However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it may be observed that in case the applicant nos.2 to 7 have not obtained bail as yet, they may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
No coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to in the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the applicant nos.2 to 7 in the court below, whichever is earlier.
With the aforesaid observations this application, with regard to applicant nos.2 to 7, is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 M. Kumar