Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9541 of 2021
Applicant :- Ganesh Chandra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State through video conferencing.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 15.09.2016 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area)/Additional District Judge, Room No.4, Kannauj in Complaint Case No.34 of 2015 (Guddi vs. Ganesh Chandra and others) under Sections 323, 354, 452, 395, 504 IPC at Police Station Gurshayganj, District Kannauj. Further prayer has been made for quashing the above entire criminal proceeding.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report was lodged on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. The present proceeding has been instituted against the applicants as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by applicant no.4 against husband of opposite party no.2 and 3, who is family members of opposite party no.2. It is a case of no injury. It is further submitted that from the version of the statement of complainant as well as witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the applicants. General allegations have been levelled against the applicants.
From the perusal of 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 applicants.
All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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.
Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 60 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 60 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
It is made clear that the applicants will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.5.2021 Ajeet
Digitally signed by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav Date: 2021.05.20 17:34:51 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad