Court No. - 38
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16475 of 2019 Applicant :- Shyamveer Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.C. Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1607 of 2019 (State vs. Shyamveer and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 391 of 2016, under Sections 364, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura as well as charge-sheet dated 27.7.2017 and summoning order dated 5.4.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Mathura.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. Learned Magistrate has noted in order dated 25.2.2019 regarding the contradiction in the case diary and the charge-sheet which was filed by the Investigating Officer who appeared before the learned Magistrate and after perusal of explanation given by the Investigating Officer, learned Magistrate took the cognizance under Section 364, 120-B, 504 and 506 IPC against the applicants and the learned Magistrate has not mentioned any reason or justification for taking the cognizance of the offence upon the said charge-sheet. The criminal proceeding pending against the applicants is abuse of process of law which is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants but could not disputed the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.
In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016) 1 SCC (Crl.) 510, it has been held by the Apex Court that 'the power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly when there is patent error or gross injustice in the view taken by a subordinate court'.
From perusal of record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicants relates to the disputed question of fact, merit and demerit of the case cannot be adjudicated at this stage, only prima-facie cognizable case is to be seen, as such, prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant is refused.
It is settled principle principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is not required to pass any detailed order regarding the truthfulness or falsehood of the material on record. Only for satisfaction of the Magistrate is required whether prima-facie case is made out or not. In my view there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 5.4.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate, as such, the order passed by the learned Magistrate requires no interference.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered as expeditiously as possible by the court below in accordance with law.
With aforesaid direction /observation, the instant application finally stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Saurabh