Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19833 of 2018 Applicant :- Jitendra Singh @ Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Rathore,Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 551 of 2016 (State Vs. Subhash @ Mama Thakur and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 04 of 2016, under Sections- 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Akarabad, District-Aligarh, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution is bundle of lies established from the fact that the applicant was in jail in Case No. 735 of 2015 since 16.12.2015 and that he actually enlarged on bail in March, 2016. Thus he could not have been involved in the incident on 02.01.2016 when the recovery is claimed from the applicant.
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 applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his 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 applicant 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 :- 31.5.2018/Lbm/-