Court No. - 65
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8336 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ramkumar And Another Respondent :- The Session Judge Court Of Session Aligarh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Bal Mukund Singh,Anand Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Bal Mukund Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned Government Advocate-I appearing for the State, and Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh rejecting Criminal Revision No. 552 of 2017, Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P. preferred against an order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 1138 of 2017, State of U.P. v. Ramkumar and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh.
It appears that the revision was carried to the Sessions Judge on the ground that the Magistrate has passed the order summoning the revisionists-petitioners mechanically in cyclostyle proforma without application of mind besides other substantial grounds.
All submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under the writ jurisdiction. 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the orders impugned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the petitioners file an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against them within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail may 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. 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 petitioners.
However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Digamber