Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.M.A. Zaidi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the Charge sheet No. 90 of 2013, dated 19.03.2013 laid in Case Crime no. 162 of 2013, under Sections 419/420 I.P.C., P.S. Safipur, district-Unnao and the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 4727 of 2013, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, as well as the summoning order dated 06.09.2013 passed therein.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that even if the entire allegations made in the first information report and those in the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the other material on record are left unrebutted, no offence against the applicants is disclosed, yet the court below has by the impugned order mechanically summoned the applicants and hence the prosecution of the applicant in the present case as well as the summoning order passed therein are liable to be quashed.
Sri S.M.A. Zaidi, learned A.G.A. per contra submitted that the allegations made against the applicants are that they had made interpolations in the family register and got the name of co-accused, Ram Vilas mutated through proceedings under PA11 over the property belonging to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 to which she had succeeded after the death of her father Mohan Lal, with the dishonest intention of granting the same.
He further submitted that 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 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 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. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case and the chargesheet is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 45 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 :- 11.3.2014 Faridul