Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24976 of 2018
Applicant :- Hukum Singh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Ashutosh Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Keshari Nath Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri keshri Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint No. 3811/9/2016 (Jagdish Saran Vs. Hukum Singh & others) pending before the A.C.J.M., Court No.1 as well as summoning order dated 08.02.2018 under Sections 452, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C. passed by Additional Session Judge in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2018.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that earlier accused applicant No.1 had filed an F.I.R. against O.P. No.2 and his six other family members on 9.04.2017 which was registered as Case Crime No.222 of 2017 under Section 395 I.P.C. in which after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. As a counter-blast to that case, the present complaint case has been filed by O.P. No. 2 on 24.12.2016 implicating the accused applicant No.1 and his other family members including minor son. Further it is argued that no name of witness of the said occurrence was disclosed by the complainant (O.P. No.2) in the said complaint and after the statement of 200 Cr.P.C. had been recorded of the complainant, statements of two witnesses were also got recorded i.e. Ajay as P.W. No.1 and the statement of other witness has not been annexed by him. Both these witnesses are neighbours of the complainant. No statement has been recorded by the trial court of the person who is alleged to have been molested by the O.P. No.2. Learned counsel for the applicants further stated that if proceedings are allowed to continue, that would amount to an abuse of process of court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, Keshri Nath Tripathi opposed the quashing of the proceedings and sated that evidence on record cannot be disbelieved at this stage in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same would require trial.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 30 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.9.2018
A. Mandhani