Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3080 of 2018
Revisionist :- Munajir And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Imran Mabood Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Shanker Malviya
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 20.8.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No. 1284 of 2017 (State Vs. Zubaid and others), under Sections 452, 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Moondha Pandey, District Moradabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that while the applicants had been named in the FIR lodged by the brother of the deceased who was not eye witness, during police investigation, eye witness had specifically denied the involvement of the present applicants. He also submits that the deceased herself had been questioned by the police in her injured condition of which video recording was prepared. He also did not name the applicants as the assailants at that stage. In such circumstance, it has been submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated at this stage for the purpose of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the eye witness namely PW-2 and PW-3 who have done a volte face at the stage of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other submits that at this stage, it would be premature to judge the truthfulness of the statement of the two eye witness that had been recorded during trial and who had bee offered cross-examined by the main accused.
5. Having perused the statement of the two eye witness, it is difficult to reach a conclusion that at present there does not exist evidence as may give rise to a strong satisfaction inasmuch as two eye witness had specifically named the applicants as having accompanied the main accused and having participated in the assault though the major role had been assigned to the main accused.
6. Without making any observation as may effect merits of the present case at present, it is difficult to sustain the challenge made to the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in view of the fact noted above.
7. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. 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.
8. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
9. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 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.
10. With the aforesaid directions, this revision is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018 Mini