Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42392 of 2019 Applicant :- Shailendra Singh @ Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Appu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Bahadur Singh,D.K.Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 400 of 2019 and Case No. 350 of 2019 (Tripura Shankar Versus Shailendra Singh and others), under Section 384 I.P.C., P.S. Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) as well as summoning order dated 05.09.2019, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in aforesaid complaint case.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have been summoned against the evidence on record. The statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is against the contention of application moved as complaint. There is no mention of any independent witness in application, whereas two witnesses have been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who have said about extension of threat of dire consequences in case of non-payment of Rs.10,00,000/-, whereas it has not been said by complainant in his testimony, but trial court failed to appreciate all these facts and evidence and summoned the applicants for offence punishable under Section 384 I.P.C., which is misuse of process of law and for end of justice this application be allowed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer.
From the perusal of material placed on record, it is apparent that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with contention that complainant was having agricultural land of area 23 biswa at Pilkhani. Accused persons, who are residents of nearby village and well acquainted with complainant, were intending to purchase above land, but this was refused by him. Then, those named accused persons reached at the house of complainant at 7.30 PM and took him at their residence. He was pressurized for sale of above land, but it was refused. They administered intoxicated tea due to which complainant become unconscious. He was taken for medical help. On 03.04.2019, again a demand under extortion for Rs.10,00,000/- was made by Nagendra Mishra through cell phone, subsequently, by each of above named accused. This was said by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. with further corroboration of statement of two witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. Meaning thereby, in the Magistrate inquiry there was evidence for offence punishable under Section 384 I.P.C. and accordingly, summoning order was passed.
At the time of summoning, Magistrate is not required to make meticulous analysis of evidence. Rather, a prima facie case is to be seen and it was seen by Magistrate. This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to embark upon factual aspect, which is a question of trial before trial Court.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants the application so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the entire proceeding as well as summoning order stands dismissed.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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.
For a period of 30 days from today, 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 observations, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 NS