Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33001 of 2018 Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 13.6.2018 in Complaint Case No.19 of 2018 (Shiv Charan vs. Anil @ Annu and others) under sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 354 IPC P.S. Sainya, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2 Agra and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the accused-applicant no. 1 is a recorded tenure holder of some land which was tried to be encroached by the opposite party no. 2 regarding which he made several complaints to the District Administration because of that enmity, the opposite party no. 2 has falsely implicated the accused-applicant no.1 and his brothers. If proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
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 applicant. 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 and 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 of the aforesaid case 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, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down 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 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 aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.9.2018 AU