Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
By filing this 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 4.6.2020 as well as charge-sheet dated 28.01.2020, in Case Crime No. 722 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Criminal Case No.5333 of 2020, State of U.P. v. Mishri Lal, whereby the cognizance has been taken and the process has been issued against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the disputed land was owned by one Munni Devi, who died on 13.12.1981 and thereafter the land was inherited by the applicant Mishri Lal and Narendra and Nanke and their names were also mutated in the revenue record.
It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is not having any concern with the land owned by the applicant and other co-tenure holders but he has filed the FIR on false and concocted facts and the Investigating Officer has not investigated the allegations of the FIR in right perspective and has filed charge sheet on insufficient material.
It is further submitted that the Magistrate has also not taken care to peruse the material placed before him in the case diary and, therefore, in a cursory way took cognizance and issued process.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that at this stage minute scrutiny of the evidence and the material collected by the Investigating Officer could not be done as it is the subject matter of trial, therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Gujrat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in 2019 SCC online SC 132', no illegality has been committed by the trial court in taking the cognizance of the offence and by issuance of the process against the applicant.
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 applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings 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 the 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, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicants appears and surrenders before the court below within 20 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Irfan