Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42789 of 2019 Applicant :- Dalapat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar,Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 15th October, 2018 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 656 of 2006 (State Vs. Bhojraj & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 403 fo 2006 under Sections 304/34, 326/34, 323/34, 336 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Mainather, District- Mordabad, whereby the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that lower court has summoned the applicant only on the basis of statements of the P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 without recording any sufficient reasons, which is per se illegal.
Revisionist's counsel has also tried to point out certain infirmities in the evidence which has been made the basis to summon the accused-applicant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The factual controversies have been raised and certain submissions which are more in the nature of ultimate defence that the accused may finally take to show their innocence, have also been made. The plea that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated, has also been taken. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness which may persuade this Court to interfere in either of the impugned orders. There is no abuse of court's process perceptible in the same. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case have been appreciated in right perspective. The relevant law also have been taken into consideration by the lower sessions court. This Court also does not see any such element of perversity in either of the impugned orders. The evidence has been produced during the course of trial appears to have been sufficient to justify the summoning of the applicant as additional accused. There does not appear to be any element of perversity in the impugned orders. As per law that has been laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court's in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC-92, though the standard of sufficiency of evidence which may justify the summoning of the accused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. is on a different footing than the standard of sufficiency that would justify the summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. But that does not go to mean that the standard to justify the summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be the same which is required to be employed at the time of final adjudication on the point of guilt or innocence of an accused. Considerations to summon an accused to face trial are different from the considerations which should ultimately vindicate the conviction of an accused. In the present matter in hand it cannot be said that the evidence as was available on record does not justify the summoning of the applicant as additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. or that the ratio and the guidelines as have been provided by the Apex Court in its decision given in the case of Hardeep Singh's case (supra), have not been followed.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the application has no merits and there is no justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order. The prayer to quash the impugned order is therefore, refused.
However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused-revisionist may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Sushil/-