Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21906 of 2019 Applicant :- Mahboob Alam Alias Firoj Ahmad And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 7.8.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3677 of 2017 (Mehrunnisha Vs. Lal Mohammmad and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Tanda Kotwali, District Ambedkar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Mehrunnisha) is married wife of applicant No. 1 (Mahboob Alam @ Firoj Ahmad). Due to matrimonial dispute, opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Mehrunnisha) has filed this complaint maliciously with false allegation only to harass the applicants. Allegation made in the complaint is false, fabricated and most unnatural as the applicants came at the parental residence of opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Mehrunnisha) and assaulted her. Even so, opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Mehrunnisha)/complainant has neither been medically examined nor has sustained any injury. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Alternative remedy is available to the applicants to submit application under Section 245(2) of the Code to get themselves discharged. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
It is provided that if applicants apply for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided by the trial court on merit by a speaking order.
It is also provided that if the applicant Nos. 2 to 5 apply for exemption from personal attendance through counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C., learned trial court shall consider their application sympathetically.
Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants.
With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of. Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Jaswant