Court No. - 32
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6367 of 2018 Applicant :- Prakash And 10 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the criminal case no.10035 of 2017 arising out of case crime no.283 of 2017, challenging the charge-sheet dated 27.5.2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bulandshahr and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid case crime.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that with general allegation on the basis of false allegation entire family has been implicated in the present case including Jeth, Jethani and grand children, who are not concerned, with the demand of dowry and torture and they are not expected to interfere in affairs in between the husband and wife. There are general allegations, but the investigating officer without reliable material even submitted charge-sheet. Hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. Alternative prayer is to issue direction for consideration of the bail application expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437.
Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer.
Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. The court concerned, where proceeding is pending, is expected to scrutinize the material carefully so any innocent person is not harassed, prosecuted and held guilty. Since the disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence the prayer in respect of applicants no.1, 2 and 3 is hereby refused.
As far as expeditious disposal of the bail application is concerned, no such direction is required. However, in view of the aforesaid facts, if the applicants no.1, 2 and 3 appears before the courts below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
As far as applicants no.4 to 11 are concerned, if objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicants no.4 to 11 within three weeks through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. If their personal presence is not required on any specific date, they may be permitted to appear through counsel.
For a period of three weeks no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Pramod