Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27261 of 2018 Applicant :- Shanti Swaroop And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned summoning order dated 16.8.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 2467 of 2017 (Smt. Anita Kumari Vs. Shanti Swaroop & others), under Sections 494, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Amariya, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2, who is wife of the applicant no. 1. It is wrong allegation made by her that accused-applicant no. 1 has married accused- applicant no. 3 despite the fact that his marriage with opposite party no. 2 still sustains. The accused-applicant no. 2 is mother of applicant no. 1. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, that would amount to abuse of process of law.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
Perused the impugned order. As per allegation made in the complaint, the opposite party no. 2 had married the accused- applicant no. 1 on 28.4.1998 and without having procured divorced, applicant no. 1 is alleged to have married accused- applicant no. 3 on 20.2.2014. There are also allegations against the accused-applicants of beating and abusing the opposite party no. 2 and regarding these allegations, the statements of complainant and two witnesses Chhedi Lal and Anita Kumari have been recorded and on the basis of their statements, offence under the aforementioned sections have been found to be made out.
The veracity of the aforesaid statements cannot be dis-believed at this stage in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as the same would require trial. 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 proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 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, 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 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 of.
Order Date :- 6.9.2018 A.P. Pandey