Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21618 of 2019 Applicant :- Murali@Pujari And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Veer Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 03.08.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 177 of 2017 (Panmati Vs. Murali & Others), under Sections 452, 354, 323 IPC, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicants and opposite party no. 2 Smt. Panmati are neighbourer. Prema Devi mother of the applicant no. 1 Murali @ Pujari has lodged First Information Report in the year 2013 against Rajdhan husband of opposite party no.2 Smt. Panmati and his family members. After investigation police has submitted charge sheet in that case. In the year 2017 Prema Devi lodged First Information Report against Vijay Beldar son of opposite party no.2. In counter blast opposite party no. 2 Smt. Panmati has filed this complaint maliciously with false allegations. As per version of the complaint four persons entered into the residence of opposite party no.2 Smt. Panmati and assaulted her and her husband with kicks, fists and blunt objects i.e. lathi and danda. Even so, none from the side of the opposite party no.2 has either been medically examined or has sustained any injury. Accordingly, no offence is made out.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Alternative remedy under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., is available to the applicants to get themselves discharge from the court concerned.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
It is further directed that if applicants apply for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided by the trial court on merit by a speaking order.
Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants.
With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 AKT