Court No. - 3
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22522 of 2019 Applicant :- Pappu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Dhirendra Kumar Srivasrtava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 3.12.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.5504/17, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli by which the applicant has been summoned for the aforesaid offence.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint, which was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, was based on false facts and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Further submission is that there is matrimonial dispute between the parties and this complaint has been filed as a counter blast to that dispute, which is pending before the Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Further submission is that there was no evidence on record on the basis of which the applicant could have been summoned for the said offence, as such there is gross misuse of the process of the court and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the request for quashing the entire complaint proceedings.
Admittedly this application has been filed against the summoning order for which the remedy of revision is very much provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The settled law so far as Section 482, Cr.P.C. is concerned is that where a effective remedy is provided under law against the order, there is no scope of using authority under Section 482, Cr.P.C. On facts also it appears from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned trial court after recording the evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and perusing the record summoned the applicant for the said offence. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of summoning it is not expected from the court below to pass a very detailed order. What is expected is to see that by the evidence on record whether a prima facie offence is being made out or not. In the impugned order it has been observed by the learned magistrate that a prima facie case for the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was being made out.
Hence, I do not find any ground for interference in the impugned order.
This application is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that if the applicant surrenders before the learned magistrate and moves an application for bail within a month from today, the learned magistrate will consider the bail prayer of the applicant and pass suitable orders expeditiously, preferably on the same day.
Order Date :- 11.6.2019 T. Sinha