Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28649 of 2019 Applicant :- Mamtesh @ Bantu And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.04.2019 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.1, Mainpuri in F.R. Case No. 517 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 778 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 427, 376, 511, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case because applicant no.3 Shashi Devi had earlier filed a case being Case Crime No. 610 of 2017 under sections 376, 511, 427, 506 IPC against one Harveer Singh who is husband of opposite party No. 2 of this case, in which charge-sheet had been filed against Harveer Singh. Therefore by way of retaliation, the present false case has been initiated in which after investigation, police had submitted final report, whereafter a protest petition was filed and the trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned summoning order dated 02.04.2019 directing all the accused-applicants to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 427, 376, 511, 506 IPC. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards statement of the victim which is annexed at Page 25 in which only accused applicants Nos. 1 to 5 Mamtesh @ Bantu, Tinku, Smt. Shashi Devi, Rishu and Sachin respectively, have been assigned the role of throwing down the victim and having derobed her and attempted to outrage her modesty and not to accused-applicant no.6 Bitu. But the impugned order shows that no such distinction has been made as to which accused was summoned under Sections 376, 511, 506 I.P.C. Therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has conceded that trial court has not made any clarification as to which accused has been summoned for offences under Sections 376, 511, 506 I.P.C. and has passed a blanket order summoning all the accused-applicants for the aforesaid offence. Learned AGA has also conceded the said fact.
I have gone through the impugned order.
In view of the above submissions, I find that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, the same not being in accordance with law.
The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of 30 days after taking into consideration the evidence on record clearly specifying the offences of each accused separately.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Madhurima