Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3006 of 2018 Revisionist :- Rajan Gupta And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 8th June, 2018 passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Farrukkhabad rejecting the discharge application filed by the revisionists in S.S.T. No.
27 of 2017 (Sudha Batham vs. Udaini Rajpoot), under Section 294 I.P.C., Police Station Mau Darwaja, District Farrukhabad.
From the record, it appears that the revisionists had earlier approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482 No. 20260 of 2018 (Udai Rajpoot & 3 Others vs. State of U.P. & Another), which was disposed of finally vide order dated 4th June, 2018. For ready reference, the order dated 4th June, 2018 is reproduced herein-below:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the NBW dated 02.05.2018, summoning order dated 27.03.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 27 of 2017 (Smt. Sudha Batham Vs. Udai Rajpoot and others), under Section 394 I.P.C., Police Station- Mau Darwaja, District- Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Farrukhabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned order. The prayer to quash the same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 45 days and no more, from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance.
The present application stands disposed of."
Subsequent to the order dated 4th June, 2018, the revisionists filed discharge application before the court below in terms of Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. The court below by means of the impugned order dated 8th June, 2018 rejected the discharge application on the findings that the revisionists have filed discharge application without surrendering before the court below or obtaining bail. The court below has recorded a further finding that there does not exist any such material on the record on the basis of which charge alleged against the revisionists can be said to be groundless. As the applicants refused to participate in the proceedings of the trial, the court below by means of the order dated 2nd May, 2018 issued Non-Bailable Warrants against the revisionists. When inspite of the order dated 2nd May, 2018, the revisionists refused to appear before the court below, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the revisionists vide order dated 8th June, 2018. Thus, the Non-Bailable Warrants so issued against the revisionists have been operating against the revisionists for the last more than four months. Inspite of the expiry of the aforesaid period, the revisionists have chosen not to appear before the court below and seek recall of the warrant so issued under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C. This shows total disrespect to the process of the Court.
In view of the facts as noted herein above, no occasion arises before this Court to entertain this application. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Sushil/-