Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17669 of 2013 Applicant :- Keshav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devashish Mitra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Pradeep Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
List has been revised.
Heard Sri Devashish Mitra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed with a prayer to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 10.5.2012 passed by learned A.C.J.M. II, Bareilly and the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 81 of 2011, under Section 379 IPC, P.S. Shahi, District Bareilly.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that accused-applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2. No such occurrence has ever taken place. The present prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of court and a malicious prosecution which needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of quashing of the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present, however, counter affidavit has been filed from his side.
I have gone through the complaint. On an application under Section 156(3), investigation was made by the police and final report was submitted. After the submission of final report notice was issued to the complainant and vide order dated 14.12. 2011 of the court, the said final report was rejected and the same was registered as a complaint case, whereafter the statement of complainant/informant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses Amba Prasad and Ram Chandra were recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The complaiant's version as mentioned in the complaint was that the complainant was owner and was in possession of 2/3 part of Gata No. 795 area 0.230 hectare in District Bareilly in village Mandwa Vanshipur Paragna Shahi, Tehsil Meerganj. On the spot partition had taken place of the said field. The western portion of the area i.e. 0.150 hectare came in the share of the complainant in which he had sown crop of wheat. On 13.4.2010, in the night, the accused-applicants along with other co-accused had cut the crop of wheat stealthily and the said occurrence was seen by the said witnesses. The trial court has summoned the accused-applicants under Section 379 IPC along with other co-accused to face trial. The statements which have been recorded by the trial court cannot be disbelieved in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as the same requires trial. It cannot be denied that cognizable offence is not made out against the accused-applicants.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 applicants 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 :- 26.8.2019 A.P. Pandey