Court No. - 37
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10599 of 2003 Applicant :- Harjendra Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Hajela Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.
Advocate,S.K.Mishra,Vivek Dubey
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings in Case No. 6910 of 2002 pending in the Court of C.J.M. Saharanpur under Sections 302/201/120- B/392 IPC. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent Gajjan Singh on 31.1.2002 for an investigation and for lodging of a First Information Report with the allegations that he had information that his son had been killed. This application was treated as a complaint case and was numbered as Case No. 6910 of 2002. On 31.1.2002, the statements of the applicant Gajjan Singh was taken under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of others were taken under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the applicants were also summoned by the order dated 8.8.2003. This application has been filed for the quashing of the proceedings of the complaint case numbered as Case No. 6910 of 2002. When the application was initially filed an order was passed on 18.12.2003 which was to the following effect:-
"Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and also perused the materials on record.
Incident is said to have taken place in the month of May, 1997 and its complaint was made after about five years. Further it is based on the hearsay evidence and even at earlier occasion, police after investigation found a case of no evidence. With a view to harass the applicants, complaint was brought by the opposite party No. 2.
Admit. Issue notice. Let counter affidavit be filed within 4 weeks.
Put up on 29-1-2004 for hearing. In the meantime, proceedings of case No. 6920 of 2002 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur under Sections 302, 120B, 392 IPC shall remain stayed."
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that an incident which had taken place as long back as in 1996 and which had resulted earlier in the discharge of the accused on 12.11.2002 was now being treated as a separate incident and a fresh proceeding was being needlessly undertaken.
Learned A.G.A., however, submits that the discharge which had taken place earlier was with regard to the incident which had taken place on 26.4.1996 and the incident which had been reported now was a separate one. In the instant case this incident was of 13.5.1997 and, therefore, the applicants could not take any advantage of the judgement and order dated 12.11.2002.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicants may apply for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
Till the disposal of the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
An endeavour shall be made to decide the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of six months from the presentation of the application.
With these observations, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 praveen.
(Siddhartha Varma,J.)