Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5438 of 2019 Appellant :- Devendra And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 06.07.2019 in Complaint Case No.12 of 2017 (Kallu Vs. Devendra and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mohana, District Siddharth Nagar.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that on 29.03.2017 at about 7:00 AM, the appellants reached at the door of the victim and abused her with the name of her caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate her and on being asked to refrain from abusing, the appellants assaulted her by kicks and fists, lathi and danda and also snatched her nose pin and when Chandrawati tried to rescue her, she was also assaulted.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the appellants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the appellants and as such, impugned summoning order cannot be quashed.
Moreover, at this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the appellants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this criminal appeal is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Nadim