Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42573 of 2019 Applicant :- Ravi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 11.11.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4056 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Ravi), under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regularization) Act, 1957, P.S. Baghpat, District- Baghpat, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant is the owner of the tractor on which after making illegal mining, soil was loaded and as such complaint under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regularization) Act, has been filed against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the tractor in question was run by the driver and he has no knowledge about the loading of the said soil on his tractor.
Per contra, learned AGA has supported the impugned order and has submitted that learned Magistrate after looking the allegations made in the complaint, has summoned the applicant to face trial and the disputed defence cannot be considered at this stage as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and considering the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the applicant, as such impugned complaint cannot be quashed.
At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the 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 and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 KU