Called on.
Heard learned counsel Sri Vikas Pandey, Advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the material available on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.01.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shrawasti in Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2019 (Ram Prakash and others Vs. Chetram and others) and summoning order dated 10.10.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti in Complaint Case No. 540 of 2018 (Cheetram Vs. Brijesh Kumar and Others), under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Ekauna, District Shrawasti, contained as Annexure nos. 1 and 2 to the application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint in the instant case has been filed with malafide intention on the basis of information given by opposite party no.2 and no offence as stated in the complaint has been committed by the applicants.
It is further submitted that the Magistrate without going into the depth of the matter has summoned the applicants in a cursory way.
It is further submitted that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the applicants is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the complaint as well as the summoning order whereby the applicants were summoned be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicants on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the complaint, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 kkv/