Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14660 of 2018
Applicant :- Krishan Kumar Bajpayee And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Padmaker Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.4, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 220 of 2017 and summoning order dated 17.05.2017 passed by A.C.M.M.-I, Kanpur Nagar as well as proceeding of the complaint case no.5154 of 2016 (Pallvi Bajpayee Vs. Krishan Kumar Bajpayee and others)under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in he court of A.C.M.M.-I, Kanpur Nagar.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the order dated 27.02.2018 and the summoning order dated 17.05.2017 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within forty five days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment 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 45 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 :- 30.4.2018 Prajapati