Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for State of U.P. and perused application moved under section 482 Cr.P.C.
By filing this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. applicants have prayed to quash charge sheet dated 22.10.2013 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.10 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No.672 of 2013, under sections 323, 324, 504, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for applicants contended that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated with malafide intention. Learned counsel for applicants further contended that a civil suit is pending between the parties regarding boundary wall in which incident is alleged to have been taken place by prosecution.
Learned counsel for applicants prayed that in view of pendency of civil suit further proceeding of present case crime should be quashed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for applicants.
Pendency of civil suit may not be a ground of quashing proceeding of criminal case. Moreover civil dispute may be a cause or motive for criminal act.
Accused applicants are named in F.I.R. and charge sheet has been submitted against them by police after investigation whereupon Magistrate has taken cognizance.
Under section 239 Cr.P.C. Magistrate is competent to consider as to whether any offence is made out against accused applicants or not. If Magistrate finds that no offence is made out against accused applicants on the basis of evidence collected by Investigating Officer, Magistrate may discharge accused applicants under section 239 Cr.P.C.
In view of above, I am of the view that no interference is justified under section 482 Cr.P.C.
At this stage, learned counsel for applicants prayed that a direction should be made for expeditious disposal of bail application in view of principles laid down by Seven Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
A direction for expeditious disposal of bail application in view of principles laid down by this Court as well as by Apex Court in aforesaid pronouncements appears just.
In view of above it is directed that if the applicants appear before Magistrate within one month from today and move bail application, Magistrate shall dispose of their bail application expeditiously in view of principles laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
Till expiry of one month, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants.
With above direction application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 20.11.2014 RU