Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4916 of 2018 Petitioner :- Samar Bahadur Singh And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Allahabad in Complaint Case No.1521 of 2016 (Manik Raj vs. Samar Bahadur Singh and others) under sections 323, 504, 506, 379 IPC, Police Station Handia, District Allahabad as well as order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the District and Session Judge, Allahabad in revision no.76 of 2018 (Samar Bahadur and others vs. State of U.P. and another).
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no. 2 is a fair price shop dealer who kept enmity with the petitioners because the petitioners have made complaint against them.
I have gone through the impugned order. No infirmity is found at this stage. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The statement of the witnesses can be judged after cross- examination during the trial, hence at this stage, the factual aspect cannot be looked into.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the 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 judgment 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With aforesaid direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 AU