Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19223 of 2020
Applicant :- Rakesh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukti Nath Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 829 of 2020 (State Vs. Rakesh and others), arsing out of Case Crime No. 0566 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur with further prayer to quash the order of taking cognizance on the charge-sheet.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the FIR of the case has been lodged highly belated. The prosecution version is not supported with the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, accordingly, submitted to quash the charge-sheet.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants.
The FIR of the case is made as Annexure-1 to the affidavit, in which the informant Chhoti Bitiya had made allegations against accused Rakesh and three others in regard to causing simple hurt and also criminally intimidating after having intruded in the house. Statement of witnesses and informant are Annexure- 2 to the affidavit. Injury report has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. Statement of witnesses and injury report supports the version of the FIR. The charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation and the concerned Magistrate has taken the cognizance on the charge-sheet after having perused the relevant materials filed with the case diary.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR was lodged due to family property dispute, same is the defence of the applicants, which cannot be considered by the concerned Magistrate while taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, as such, no interference is required in the matter.
However, considering the request of learned counsel for the applicants, it is provided that in case applicants appear before the court concerned below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati 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 (322) (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. after hearing the Public Prosecutor in the aforesaid case number for the aforesaid offence.
With the aforesaid observations the application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Prajapati