Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11807 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Sama @ Sama Praveen And 6 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No.1180/9 of 2018 (Irshad Vs. Shaukat Ali and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 392 I.P.C. (against applicant no.1 & 2) and under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 and 392 I.P.C. (against applicant nos.2 to 6), Police Station Kandhala, District Shamli as well as the summoning order dated 20.3.2018.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the present proceedings is nothing but as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicants side against the opposite party no.2. It is further contended that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing of summoning order as well as aforesaid proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 applicants. However in case the applicants 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 :- 30.10.2018 Dev/-