Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1764 of 2007 Applicant :- Madan Pal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 30.06.2006 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I., Ghaziabad and to quash the proceedings of the complaint Case No. 72 of 2005; under sections 323, 326, 452, 506 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I., Ghaziabad.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the criminal proceeding initiated against the applicants is malafide and in the coutnerblast of the case running against the complainant as Complaint Case No. 1104 of 2002 and Complaint Case No. 3169 of 2005 under Sections 147/323/427/436/452/506 I.P.C. (Daulat Ram vs. Laxmi Chand and others) before the Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I., Ghaziabad. 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.
Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicants.
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 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 summoning order dated 30.06.2006 as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
In the last counsel for applicants prayed that some protection be granted to the applicants in case they surrender before the concerned court and further prayed that this court may please to direct the trial court to follow the directions passed in matter of Amarawati Versus State of U.P reported in 2005 Cri LJ 755 (All) as well directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of UP and Ors reported in 2009 (4) SCC,437 considering the fact that the proceedings in the present case were stayed by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2007.
The directions given by the Full Bench of this Court in Amarawati (supra) as well as directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (supra) which are on the issue of (I) to follow the directions passed by Hon'ble Supreme in the matter of Joginder Kumar Versus State of UP reported in 1994 (4) SCC,260, (II) Trial Court to take all endeavour to decide a bail application preferably on the same day and (III) to grant interim bail in appropriate cases pending disposal of final bail application, are very explicit and to be followed mandatorily in letter and spirit.
A copy of the said judgments have already been circulated to all the district courts of State of Uttar Pradesh under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, therefore to repeat such direction by way of another order from this Court is neither necessary nor warranted.
In case appropriate application is filed, by the applicants, the Trial Court shall decided the same strictly in accordance with law.
I have already rejected the prayer of the applicants for quashing the order impugned and other prayers sought in the present application being sans merit, however considering the facts and circumstances of the present case it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the concerned trial court within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the trial court will decide the bail application in accordance with law.
For a period of 30 days from today no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further protection on any ground what so ever will be granted beyond the period above mentioned and in case applicants chooses not to surrender within the 30 days from today, the Trial Court is directed to take all the coercive measures in accordance with law against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Pkb/