Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27255 of 2018
Applicant :- Ram Bhajan Lal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6238 of 2017, under Section 452, 506 and 354-A IPC, P.S. Shahi, District Bareilly as well as summoning order dated 20.4.2018 and stay the proceedings of Case No. 6238 of 2017 (Smt. Shakuntala Vs. Ram Bhajan Lal and others), pending in the court of Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Bareilly.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the present case is counter blast to the case filed by the brother of accused-applicant no. 1 against the son of opposite party no. 2 under Section 376, 511, 506 IPC and 8 of POCSO Act on 9.8.2016, in which trial is proceeding. After one month of the said F.I.R., the opposite party no. 2 lodged Crime No. 171 of 2016 at P.S. Shahi, under Section 452, 354 and 506 IPC on 12.9.2016, in which police had submitted final report after investigation but the opposite party no. 2 filed portest petition against the said final report, the same was treated to be complaint case, thereafter the trial court has summoned the accused-applicant under Section 452 and 506 and 354-A IPC just to create pressure in the earlier filed case of the accused- applicants. It is further argued that whole story of the opposite party no. 2 is concocted and unbelievable.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
Perusal of the complaint would indicate that allegation of molestation after entering into house of the complainant was made regarding which the statements of the complainant as well as witnesses recorded by the trial court cannot be dis-believed at this stage in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as that would require trial.
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, 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 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, their prayer for bail may 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 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 the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.9.2018
A.P. Pandey