Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 718 of 2019
Appellant :- Siddhanath
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Dutt Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Orders on Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2019
Heard.
Cause shown is sufficient. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed.
Orders on Memo of Appeal
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 23.05.2017 and N.B.W. dated 05.10.2017 as well as entire proceeding in Case No.2086 of 2017 (State Vs. Subodh Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.159/2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, whereby appellant has been summoned in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no offence is made out against the appellant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant. 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the appellant has got right of discharge under Sections 239, 245 or 227 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceeding as well as order dated 23.05.2017 is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the appellant appears and surrenders before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in the light of the 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. in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
For a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant. However, in case, the appellant-applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 R./