Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24852 of 2018 Applicant :- Raju And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.1796 of 2017(Manbhawati Devi vs. Raju and others) under sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 379 IPC Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi and summoning order dated 01.12.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2 against whom the applicant no. 3 had earlier lodged an FIR on 17.2.2017 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, hence by way of retaliation, the present case has been lodged.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Perused the impugned order as well as injury memo. The injury memo of the opposite party no.2 shows that she has sustained six injuries in this occurrence and therefore, at this stage, the statement of the witnesses recorded by the trial court cannot be disbelieved in the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 AU