Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21724 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A., for the State of U.P.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 17.9.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3354 of 2017 (Virendra Kumar Vs. Rajendra and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Hapur Dehat District Hapur.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that Lata sister of applicant No. 3 (Lala) is married with Surendra brother of opposite party No. 2 (Virendra Kumar). Lata has filed complaint under Section 498-A IPC against opposite party No. 2 (Virendra Kumar) and his family members. In counter blast, opposite party No. 2 (Virendra Kumar) has filed this complaint maliciously with false allegation only to harass the applicants. The complaint version that applicants went at the matrimonial house of Lata and assaulted opposite party No. 2 (Virendra Kumar) is most unnatural version. As per version of the complaint, 3 persons entered into the residence of opposite party No. 2 (Virendra Kumar) and assaulted him. Even so, opposite party No. 2 (Virendra Kumar) has not either been medically examined or has sustained injury. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.
Alternative remedy under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., is available to the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 also provided that if applicants 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 expeditiously 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 applicants.
Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Jaswant