Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21541 of 2019 Applicant :- Kela And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 06.04.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 987 of 2018 (Mamta Vs. Jai karan Gurjar and others), under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Khekada, District Baghpat.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicant no. 2 Jai Karan Gurjar has lodged First Information Report against the opposite party no. 2 Mamta and her family members on 25.02.2016. In counter blast opposite party no.2 Mamta has filed this complaint maliciously with false allegation only to harass the applicants. As per version of the complaint four persons entered into the residence of informant and assaulted Devendra Sharma husband of opposite party no. 2 Mamta with blunt object lathi and danda. Even so, Devendra Sharma has neither been medically examined nor has sustained any injury. It is alleged that Dinesh was examined before the trial Court under Section 202 Cr.P.C. However, Dinesh has filed an application before the trial Court that on his place the statement of some imposter has been recorded. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Alternative remedy under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., is available to the applicants to get themselves discharge from the court concerned.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
It is further directed that if applicants apply for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided by the trial court on merit by a speaking order.
Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants.
With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 AKT