Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17315 of 2019 Applicant :- Chandraveer Singh And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohak Agrawal, Advocate holding brief for Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 05.12.2018 in Sessions Trial No.135 of 1996 (State Vs. Anil and others) arising out of Case Crime No.86 of 1994, under Sections 147, 149, 307, 452 IPC, P.S. Mogarra, District Mathura pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge III, Mathura.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that against their summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., applicants had earlier approached before this Court in 482 Application No.8753 of 2005 wherein interim protection had been granted. However, the aforesaid application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 4.5.2018. Further the applicants had no knowledge of the said order and in such circumstances, fresh summons have been issued against them.
4. While there can be no fresh challenge to the order under Section 319 and the applicants must face trial, however, keeping in mind the entirety of the facts and circumstances 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 questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court 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.
5. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet dated 05.12.2018 as well as the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case, is refused.
6. In view of the observation made above, in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below on the next date and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. Till the next date fixed before the court below, the non bailable warrant against the applicants may not be executed.
7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Meenu