Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22048 of 2019
Applicant :- Lale @ Lal Bahadur And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Prakash Yadav,Bijai Nath Yadav,Satya Prakash Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 23.01.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No.14 of 2019 (State Vs. Lale @ Lal Bahadur and others) arising out of Case Crime No.750 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) 5Ka SC/ST Act, P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge - II, Sonebhadra.
As per the allegations made in the first information report, it is alleged that on 18.12.2017 at about 5.00 P.M., the applicants assaulted the first informant by LATHI, DANDA and tried to disrobe her and addressed her on caste with an intention to humiliate in public view. On the basis of first information report, the police investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) 5Ka SC/ST Act on which cognizance was taken by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra vide order dated 18.02.2019.
From the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation 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 submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law 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 judgment passed 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).
For a period of thirty days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for 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 :- 3.6.2019 Atul