Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24785 of 2018 Applicant :- Kaushal Kishor Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Babita Upadhyay,Sanjeev Kumar Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Smt. Babita Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.6.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2016 (Kaushal Kishor Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) as well as the order dated 9.2.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 1860 of 2014 (Avinash Kumar Vs. Smt. Ramwati and others), under Section 420, 467 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras and discharge the applicant from offences under Section 420 & 467 IPC in the aforesaid case and further prayed to stay the further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1860 of 2014 (Avinash Kumar Vs. Smt. Ramwati and others), u/s 420 & 467, P.S. Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, pending in the court of learned C.J.M, District Hathras.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that offence u/s 420 & 467 IPC is not made out against the accused- applicant yet the court below has wrongly dismissed the discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. and the same has been upheld by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 13.6.2018 erroneously.
Perused both the impugned orders. The order dated 9.2.2016 has been passed by the learned C.J.M.. Hathras, in which it has been clearly mentioned that whether contract for the transaction in question was forged one, is a matter of evidence and the same cannot be decided at this stage without taking evidence of the witnesses. The said order, when challenged in the revisional court, has been upheld.
This Court does not have any view other than what has been expressed by the trial court. There is no infirmity found in both the impugned orders. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. 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 U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicant 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 :- 27.7.2018 A.P. Pandey