Heard Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for applicant as well as Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Ramesh Kumar Nigam to quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 51399 of 2020, arising out of Charge sheet dated 17.07.2020 as well as impugned summoning order dated 4.12.2020 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 51399 of 2020, Case Crime No. 699 of 2017, under Sections 420, 471 IPC, relating to Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow, State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Nigam, pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and further to stay the criminal proceedings of above noted criminal case.
Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that allegations of the FIR has not been investigated by the Investigating Officer in right perspective and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance of the offence by writing a proforma order and perusal of the record it clearly reflects that the Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind. The pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the applicant is nothing but the abuse of the process of law.
It is further submitted that the dispute is between the two real brothers and the Magistrate has not considered this aspect of the matter that evidence/ material has been placed before him by the Investigating Officer is not sufficient for summoning the applicant and therefore the charge sheet as well as proceedings pending before the court below be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicant on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 20 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
It is further provided that the trial court while considering the plea of bail of the applicant shall have due regard to the fact that dispute is of minor nature and also between the two real brothers.
It is further provided that after obtaining bail the applicant within a reasonable time thereafter may move an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., and in that scenario the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Muk