Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26670 of 2018
Applicant :- Javed
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui,Mohd. Kalim
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Mohd. Kalim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has filed supplementary affidavit in the Court today, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 14.02.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband in Complaint Case No. 121 of 2016 (Smt. Bano v. Mukarram and others) under Sections 452, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station - Deoband, District - Saharanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that from the allegations made in the complaint, no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant was not present on the spot on the date of the occurrence, but was abroad. The present case has been lodged against the applicant with false allegation in counterblast of Case Crime No. 892 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station - Deoband, District - Saharanpur.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submissions thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned summoning order. He further contended that in Application u/s 482 No. - 18040 of 2017 (Mukarram and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another), this Court held that at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant, as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate concerned.
In the aforementioned case, this Court held that at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.
Whether the applicant was present on the spot at the time of occurrence or not, is disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
In view of above, the prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order passed by the court below is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.9.2018
I. Batabyal