Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45998 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Phoolmati Devi And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Smt. Phoolmati Devi and four others against State of U.P. and Ramsanehi Gupta with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 01.10.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1752 of 2016, Ramsanehi Vs. Seema and others, under Sections 419, 420, 302, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Ghughali, district Maharajganj, pending in court of C.J.M., Maharajganj, the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by C.J.M., Maharajganj, as well as order dated 22.11.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2019, Smt. Phoolmati Devi Vs. State of U.P..
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that discharge application filed by applicants was rejected by the C.J.M., Maharajganj, vide order dated 7.2.2019 and the revision against this order was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2019.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application with the contention that summoning order was challenged by the applicants before this court in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.No. 7993 of 2017, Smt. Seema Devi and three others Vs. State of U.P. and another, wherein relief prayed was rejected and this application has been filed with the same relief and it is, thus, not maintainable. While dismissing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. a direction was given by this court for appearance before the trial court, which too was not complied with. Hence this was non-obedience of the order of this court. The discharge application was filed before the Magistrate, whereas offence was triable by Court of Sessions and this discharge application was to be filed before the Sessions Judge, but it was moved before the Magistrate, which was rejected on the ground that on the basis of the evidence collected during enquiry, the summoning order was passed and there is no additional circumstance or evidence justifying discharge, if any, and this was confirmed by the revisional court. Hence this application be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made by them and from perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that the impugned summoning order was challenged in an earlier proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C., hence no second Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for the same relief is maintainable.
While rejecting the earlier proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. this court had directed for consideration of bail in case of appearance of applicants before the court concerned with the direction that no further time shall be extended, but this too was not complied with.
The Magistrate was not competent to make discharge in Sessions triable case and no discharge was moved before the Sessions Judge. Hence above allegation is not substantiated by the facts on record. Hence this application is misuse of process of law.
The application is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Pcl