Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4576 of 2019 Applicant :- Naushad And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Copy of the order dated 17.09.2017 passed in the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 39928 of 2014 and supplementary affidavit filed today are taken on record.
Heard Sri Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the order dated 26.09.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 118/12 of 2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2017 (Smt. Gulfana Vs. State of U.P. and others), under Sections 452, 376-D, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on submission of final report, protest petition was filed but the same was rejected vide order dated 04.10.2017 by the concerned Magistrate. A criminal revision was filed, which was allowed by the revisional court setting aside the order passed on 04.10.2017 directing the concerned Magistrate to pass afresh order treating the protest petition as complaint. It is further submitted that no opportunity for hearing was given to the applicants in the criminal revision, which was allowed on 26.09.2018 on insufficient ground. Order dated 26.09.2018 is illegal and continuation of the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case is the abuse of process of law.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and going through the observations recorded in the order dated 26.09.2018, when lower revisional court setting aside the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the concerned Magistrate only directed to pass afresh order treating the protest petition as complaint, applicants were served during the pendency of revision, they were participating in the revisional court proceedings and opportunity of hearing has been given to them, no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order. It is also clarified that evidence is yet to be collected and no prejudice would cause at this stage to the applicants because summoning order is yet to be passed. Thus, grounds taken in the application are not sufficient to allow the application at this stage.
Thus, the application being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Sanjeet