Court No. - 68
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4708 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajesh Pratap Singh @ Babloo And 3 Ors. Respondent :- Additional District And Session Judge And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhas Kumar,Mamta Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the judgement and order dated 20.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, Gangster Act), Court No. 5, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2018 (Krishan Pal Singh and other Vs. State of U.P. and another) dismissing the revision against the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Bareilly in Complaint Case No 3005 of 2017 (Omprakash Singh Vs. Krishan Pal Singh and others), under Sections 452,323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., PS Bithari Chainpur, District-Bareilly.
Vide order dated 11.01.2018, petitioners have been summoned for the offence under Sections 323, 427, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that civil suit is pending between the parties in which relief is granted in favour of the petitioners. After that opposite party no. 4 Om Prakash Singh has filed this complaint maliciously with false allegation only to harass the petitioners. She however, contended that as per allegations made in the complaint four persons assaulted the opposite party no.4 Omprakash Singh and his family members by kicks, fists and blunt objects lathi and danda. Even so, no one from the side of the opposite party no. 4 have either been medically examined or sustained injury. Accordingly, no offence is made out.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Alternative remedy under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., is available to the petitioners to get themselves discharge from the court concerned.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences against petitioners is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the petitioners file their bail application, prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
It is further directed that if petitioners apply for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided by the trial court on merit by a speaking order.
Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measures shall be adopted against the petitioners.
However, if the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 apply before the concerned Magistrate to exempt their appearance through counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C., the same shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate, sympathetically.
With the above directions, this petition, is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019/AKT