Court No. - 26
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10351 of 2004
Applicant :- Rama Kant Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- A.B. Sinha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashment of summoning order dated 29.08.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farukkhabad in Case No.303/11/2011 of 2003 (State Vs. Rama Kant Tiwari), in Case Crime No. 232 of 2001, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Farukkhabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farukkhabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that son of applicant has been murdered and the informant/opposite party no.2 Arvind Chaturvedi in the instant case, was the accused in criminal case registered for committing murder of the son of applicant and as a counterblast, present F.I.R. has been lodged by O.P. No.2 Arvind Chaturvedi.
The submission is that entire story as narrated in the F.I.R. is false and has been made only because of enmity between applicant and O.P. No.2 Arvind Chaturvedi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not on the spot as he was in Allahabad. He further submits that certificate of treatment filed by the applicant before the court below established that applicant was in Allahabad on the date of incident and was under treatment.
I have perused the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farukkhabad dated 29.08.2001 and order dated 18.08.2004 passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision No.348 of 2001 which was filed by the applicant against the summoning order dated 29.08.2001.
The order of the revisional court as well as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farukkhabad reveals that both the court below have considered the case of the applicant and have applied their mind in summoning the applicant/accused and learned counsel for the applicant/accused could not demonstrate that the finding recorded by the court below in summoning the applicant/accused are not in accordance with law. Further, the court below also noticed that fact that F.I.R. was lodged by the O.P. No.2 Arvind Chaturvedi, who knew the applicant/accused well and he has stated the presence of applicant/accused on the place of incident and after noticing the the aforesaid fact, the court below rejected the contention of applicant/accused.
Looking to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present case is not a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that it is a case of counterblast and some protection may be granted to the applicant/accused.
Considering the the facts of the present case, it is provided that in case, applicant/accused appears and surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law 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 the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of two months, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant/accused.
With the aforesaid directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Sattyarth