Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13810 of 2018 Applicant :- Jay Kishan Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 01.06.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1513 of 2018 (State Vs. Jay Kishan Mishra and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1083 of 2017, under Sections- 387, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of C.J.M., Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that at present, there is no material or evidence on the basis of which the present prosecution may be proceeded against the applicant. However, arguments of learned counsel for the applicants are factual in nature and would require examination of record.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme 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 applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through their counsel and move an application claiming discharge. 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 three months from today.
No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants for a period of three months from today or till the 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. 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 brought on record 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.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 A. Singh