Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7275 of 2019 Applicant :- Sabina Bano And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Ashrey Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicants Sabina Bano, Shakil Ahmad, Smt. Shubharatun Nisha and Munshi Raja Siddique, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 18.1.2018 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 8, Allahabad, in Complaint Case No. 2624 of 2017, u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case pending in court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 8, Allahabad.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that Case Crime No. 854 of 2016, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and 3/ 4 D.P. Act, was got registered at Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, by applicant no. 1 against complainant Sageer Ahmad, her husband, Shareef Ahmad, Jeth, Rafiq Ahmad, father-in-law, Islamun Nisha, mother-in-law, Rehana, Jethani, and Maqtook alias Nishar Ahmad, maternal uncle, for offences punishable under above mentioned sections and in counter blast this false complaint was got registered by complainant in which above summoning order was passed, hence this petition.
Perusal of complaint and summoning order reveals that the complaint was filed for offences punishable u/s 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. over which the Magistrate took cognizance and got the complainant examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the complainant passed the summoning order dated 18.1.2018 whereby the applicants have been summoned to face trial for offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and the recent being A.R.C.J. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 348. Therefore, this Court does not deem it proper and cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge by moving a proper application for the said purpose before the trial court and they are free to make all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court including those which have been canvassed by him before this Court in this application.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 18.1.2018 as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the applicants are ready to surrender before the court and to move bail application, however, some time be provided to them for such purpose and the court below be directed to consider their bail application expeditiously in accordance with the law as laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2005 Cri.L.J 755 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437. Prayer has also been made to direct the learned trial court to consider their discharge application.
Learned AGA has no objection against the aforesaid prayer.
As the law laid down in both the aforesaid cases, should be complied with in letter and spirit, by all courts, it is expected from the trial court that in case the applicants surrender before it within 30 days from today and apply for bail it will decide their bail application in wake of the law laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2005 Cri.L.J 755 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437.
For the aforesaid period of 30 days from today, which shall not be extended further in any case, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With the aforesaid directions this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Pcl