Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42212 of 2019 Applicant :- Deep Chandra @ Bajrangi And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
The applicants namely, Deep Chandra @ Bajrangi, Lalman, Ramu @ Ram Kishor, Manoj, Munnilal, Dhamalu, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer for quashing of summoning order dated 15.04.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 557 of 2018 (Neha Mishra Vs. Deep Chandra @ Bajrangi and Others), under Section 354(B), 509, 323, 504 of IPC, Police Station- Menhadawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel has pointed out towards certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that 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.
Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. Veracity of the statements are material evidence of fact and is not to be ascertained in this proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. of this Court because the same is within the jurisdiction of Trial Court and is a point of fact to be seen in the trial. In view of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr.L.J. 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, State of Bihar V. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, there is no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The prayer for quashing proceeding or staying further proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is refused, so far applicant nos. 1 is concerned.
So far as Applicant nos. 2 to 6, Lalman, Ramu @ Ram Kishor, Manoj, Munnilal, Dhamalu, are concerned, let notice be issued to Opposite party no. 2, inviting counter affidavit, if any, to be filed within four weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed filed within two weeks thereafter. Let the case be listed after expiry of six weeks.
Till next date of listing, further proceeding, in Complaint Case (SST) No.67/2018, (Kallu Vs. Mahesh Dubey & Others), under Sections 323/452/392/506 of I.P.C., Police Station-Rasulabad, District-Kanpur Dehat, pending before the court of Special Judge (D.A.A.)/IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, against Applicant nos. 2 to 6, Lalman, Ramu @ Ram Kishor, Manoj, Munnilal, Dhamalu,, shall be kept in abeyance.
So far as Applicant nos. 1, is concerned, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., on his behalf, stands dismissed.
However, it is directed that if the applicant no. 1, Deep Chandra @ Bajrangi, appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his 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.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Kamarjahan