Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16611 of 2018 Applicant :- Markandey Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kishore,Piyush Kishore Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 02 dated 18.12.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 858 of 2018 (State Vs. Markandey Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2016, under Sections- 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Cantt, District- Varanasi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on behalf of the co-accused in the same case an application under 482 Cr.P.C. being Application Nos. 9387 of 2018 and 12623 of 2018 has been entertained and interim protection has been granted.
It has also been stated that the opposite party no.2 has no concern with the property sold by the applicant. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the applicant's case is entirely different from that of the co- accused who are bona-fide purchaser for due consideration. It is further submitted that the complicity of the applicant is apparent from the fact that while in that earlier sale deed executed by him, the opposite party no.2 is a confirming party, the present sale deed which was with respect to the property for which the agreement to sell had been executed in his favour, the said opposite party no.2 has not been made a confirming party and the sale deed had been executed.
Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently opposed such suggestion, however, it remains a question of fact that may require evidence to be looked.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
As requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today.
No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of three months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.
If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Mini