Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2389 of 2018 Revisionist :- Momin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Raj Pandey 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.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 05.05.2018 passed by the Addl. District and Session Judge, Court No. 1, Baghpat in Session Trial No. 62 of 2015 (State Vs. Noorhasan), arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2015, under Sections- 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Singhawali Aheer, District- Baghpat, pending in the court of Addl. District and Session Judge, Court No. 1, Baghpat whereby the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C..
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the victim had offered a wavering stand during the investigation and in fact, had not named the applicant in the commission of offence.
It is therefore submitted that the applicant has been pre- maturely summoned, at this stage.
Perusal of the order, however, indicates that two prosecution witnesses namely the victim and her father had specifically led oral evidence against the applicant. In view of the apparent consistency in such statement, the applicant has been pre- maturely summoned.
However, 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 applicant at this stage. 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Abhilash