Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14729 of 2018 Applicant :- Jai Prakash And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Hriday Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 52/16 (Ram Dular vs. Dhirendra Shukla and others) under sections 323, 504, 506, 395, 427, 440, 451, 452 IPC and 3 (i) (x) SC/ST Act, PS. Rohnia, District Varanasi and summoning order dated 27.02.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned Court below issued the summoning order dated 27.02.2017 without applying his judicial mind. He further submits that the applicants are innocent person and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a no injury case. Bailable warrant was issued on 18.12.2017 against the applicants without perusing the filed documents. The applicants have no criminal history. He further submitted that bailable warrant was not served and therefore they had no knowledge about the present case and the NBW was issued on 07.02.2018 as they were not present in the Court due to lack of knowledge about the proceedings.
From the perusal of the 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned summoning order dated 27.02.2017 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby 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 on the same day 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 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.
Non Bailable warrant dated 07.02.2018 kept in abeyance.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Madhurima