Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2230 of 2018
Revisionist :- Sarvesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Satsangi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The challenge has been raised to the order dated 06.06.2018, by which the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
At this stage, it is seen that PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 (victim) have specifically named the applicant that he had been involved in the commission of offence. As for the victim, though in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she had not named the applicant, however, at the stage of statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she had specifically named the applicant but had not assigned any specific role to him as the constitute of an offence under Section 376D. IPC.
Further, plea has been raised by the applicant that the victim had married Satish and had been living with him for sometime before the allegation came to be levelled against the applicant on account of parental pressure exercised upon her.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case 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 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 Lbm/-