Court No. - 42
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1256 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dharmveer And 3 Others Respondent :- Madan Lal Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.02.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bareilly and order dated 17.7.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, District Bareilly.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At last he submitted that the petitioners are ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. He sought some time to surrender before the court below.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 23.02.2016 and the order dated 17.7.2018, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the petitioners 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 judgment 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 four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 NS