Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13677 of 2018 Applicant :- Shubham @ Santveer And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for State.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar (Amroha), District- J.P. Nagar in Complaint Case No. 958 of 2017 (Smt. Teena Vs. Shubham @ Santveer and others), under Sections 354B, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Rajabpur, District- J.P. Nagar (Amroha), the order dated 21.12.2017 whereby the discharge application filed by the applicants have been rejected as well as the entire proceedings of the abovementioned complaint case.
From the perusal of the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the court below rejecting the discharge application filed by the applicants, it appears that the court below has rejected the discharge application on the ground that firstly the applicants have not obtained bail in the above-mentioned complaint case and without obtaining bail they have filed discharge application. This finding recorded by the court below is just and legal as there is no provision in Cr.P.C. which provides for filing discharge application without obtaining bail. The court below has further observed that the evidence of the parties is yet to be recorded and therefore at this stage the application for discharge which has been filed under Section 245 (2) is liable to be dismissed. The reasoning behind the second finding appears to be correct as until and unless the evidence of the prosecution has been recorded under Section 244/246 Cr.P.C, no case for considering the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. arises. Thus there is no infirmity in the order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the court blow.
The application lacks merit and accordingly the prayer prayed for is refused.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is however observed that in case the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application of the applicants in the light of the observation made in the case of Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
As an interim measure, it is provided that for a period of two months from today or till the applicants appear before the court below whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 S. Thakur