Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46681 of 2019 Applicant :- Babu Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of case no.10 of 2019 (State vs. Babu Singh & others) arising out of case crime no.0790 of 2017, u/s 323, 324, 354-B, 506 IPC, police station Jaswant Nagar, district Etawah, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that father of the applicant no.1 Babu Singh executed a will deed in his favour on 14.9.2006 and on the basis of will-deed, name of the applicant no.1 was mutated in the revenue record, against which, opposite party no.2 Mewa Singh filed an appeal before SDM concerned which was terminated in favour of applicant no.2 and getting not any remedy in the civil side, the opposite party no.2 has lodged an FIR through his wife to exert pressure.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking to the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 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 and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 m.a.