Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6713 of 2019 Applicant :- Janardan And 9 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, and 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 complaint dated 4.8.2015 filed by opposite party no. 2 as well as the entire consequential proceeding consequent upon the aforesaid complaint including the summoning order dated 11.9.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist Banda in complaint case no. 1630/IX/ 2017 Ram Swaroop Vs. Janardan and others under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Pailani, District Banda.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed the alleged offence. In fact no such incident has taken place. There is material contradicton in the statements of witnesses recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 12.7.2016 has rejected the complaint of opposite party no. 2 under section 203 Cr.P.C, thereafter the opposite party no. 2 has filed criminal Revision no. 54 of 2016 which was allowed by the revisional court and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate concerned and thereafter the Magistrate concerned recorded the statements of Maya Devi and Ran Laxmi under section 202 Cr.P.C. only to fill-up lacuna. Thereafter, the applicants have been summoned to face the trial. The summoning order dated 11.9.2018 is not in accordance with law. The applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case only for the purpose of harassment.
On the other hand learned A.G.A argued that the applicants have been summoned to face the trial on the basis of statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has passed the impugned summoning order after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and there is no ground to quash the entire consequential proceeding consequent upon the aforesaid complaint including the summoning order of the aforementioned case.
A perusal of the record shows that the applicants have been summoned to face the trial on the basis of statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.The learned Magistrate has passed the impugned summoning order after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants. The Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire consequential proceeding consequent upon the aforesaid complaint including the summoning order of the aforementioned case. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and anotherVs. 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 UP. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for 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 :- 25.2.2019 A.