Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18925 of 2018 Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 27.06.2017 and the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4075 of 2017 (State Vs. Mohd. Guddu and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2016, under Sections- 380, 413, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3 R. P. (U.P.) Act, Police Station- R.P.F., Maduadeeh, District- Varanasi, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (NER), Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that except the prosecution version, ingredient of Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not made out against the applicants. It is however, admitted that certain property (alleged to have been stolen) had been recovered from the spot. The applicants had been named one of those persons in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at whose behest the theft had been committed.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at this stage.
However, in view of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants with regard to the permission to be granted to the applicants to appear and move discharge application before the court below through counsel, is accepted.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
As requested, the applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today.
No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants for a period of three months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.
If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Mini