Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39339 of 2018
Applicant :- Rambabu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of CNR No.UPMOO4-041480-2017,Computer No.1832 of 2017, Criminal Misc. Case/Complaint Case No.1832/112017, under sections 323, 324, 326, 506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad as well as summoning order dated 8.1.2018 pending before A.C.J.M.Court No.5, Moradabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is case of counter blast. It is next submitted that from the side of applicants a case was earlier registered against opposite party no.2 with regard to demand of dowry under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madanlal Kapoor reported in (2013)3 SCC 330 wherein the Apex Court delineated the steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and appliy for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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.
In case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, trial Court is free to take coercive action against them.
It is made clear that the applicants will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 IA