Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18920 of 2018 Applicant :- Devesh Chandra Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 1748 of 2013, (State Vs. Devesh Chandra Gupta), under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a practising lawyer and that the allegation made in the FIR are false and frivolous arising out of usual marital discord and that the allegation of offence under Section 498A and 323 IPC are clearly false.
At this stage, it is difficult to draw any conclusion as the issue involved is factual and it may require perusal of the evidence.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
As requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today.
No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of three months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.
If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Mini