Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33007 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramashish And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, 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 the summoning order dated 04.06.2018 in Complaint Case No.3627 of 2017 (Rajendra vs. Ramashish and others) under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Deogaon, District Azamgarh pending the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Azamgarh and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that earlier the accused-applicant no. 4 who is daughter-in-law of opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint case no. 660 of 2017 Bindu Devi vs. Kamlesh and others, P.S. Chandawak district Jaunpur under sections 323, 504, 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act against opposite party no. 2 and his family members, thereafter the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. If proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
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 applicant. 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 :- 20.9.2018 AU