Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32376 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramesh Yadav And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dt. 16.5. 2019 in Criminal Case No. 32/12 of 2019, under section 323, 149, 427 and 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act P.S. Maudarwaza, District Farrukhabad.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that on 21.12.2016 at about 4.30 p.m., the applicants abused the victim with the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him in public view and also assaulted him with Lathi, Danda and Akash Yadav is said to have opened fire, however, O.P. No.2 somehow rescued himself.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention, as such, summoning order be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, summoning order cannot be quashed.
Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 R