Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6172 of 2018
Applicant :- Jamurta Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing the summoning order dated 28.09.2017 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.10, Azamgarh as well as the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.9362 of 2016, u/s 420 I.P.C., P.S.-Devgaon, District-Azamgarh.
Heard applicant's counsel as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is bonafide purchaser and his case is distinguished from other co-accused. All other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
The quashing of the complaint can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and also in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
As requested, the permission to appear before the concerned lower court within a month from today through the representing counsel and move an application claiming discharge is granted to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of four months from today.
No coercive measures shall be adopted against the accused, on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved, in the aforesaid period of four months or till disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.
If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. On the other hand if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material produced by the complainant does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
It is clarified that if this order is not availed by the accused within the stipulated period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained.
It is also clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused-applicant on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018
M. Kumar