Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2157 of 2019
Applicant :- Intjar Ahmad And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,Brij Kishor Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet No. 84 of 2017 dated 21.11.2017, in Case No. 118 of 2018 (State vs. Intjar Ahmad and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 1186 of 2017, under Sections- 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, 1989 Police Station- Dumriyaganj, District- Siddharth Nagar pending in the court of IInd Additional Session/Special Judge (SC/ST(PA) Act), Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the first information report has been lodged due to enmity of election of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha. The applicants have also filed a writ - Criminal Writ Petition No. 22986 of 2017 (Intezar Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 others), in which arrest of applicants was stayed till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. contended that after investigation, the police has submitted that charge sheet against the applicants.
Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30.10.2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 22986 of 2017 (Intezar Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 others) refused to quash the first information report. Accordingly, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The fact whether allegation made in the F.I.R. is false or not, cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, prayer to quash the charge sheet in the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the offences against the applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail applications and also pray for interim bail, their prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day, and the regular bail shall be decided thereafter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim or his dependent as per the mandate of Section 15A(5) of SC/ST Act, 1989.
For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Rohit