Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record.
At this stage, there is no need to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 hence it is dispensed with.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 1216 of 2008 (Jahidunnisha Vs. Laik Mohd. and others), pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Utraula, Balrampur under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Utraula Kotwali, District Balrampur.
The accusations/allegations are factual in nature that cannot be adjudicated in the present application. There does not appear to be any sufficient and cogent ground for quashing the proceedings of the complaint case.
As far as the summoning order is concerned, it is a settled law that it need not be a well reasoned and detailed order. The order impugned, however, is a detailed order, which has been passed on the basis of the accusations made in the complaint and in the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Its perusal shows that it has been passed after due application of mind and therefore, there does not appear to be any good ground for either quashing of the summoning order or complaint.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offences are not very grave. It is also submitted that the petitioners nos. 1 & 2 are ladies who are entitled to get benefit of relevant provisions contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C. in respect of granting bail in favour of ladies. However, being law abiding citizens they intend to appear before the court below.
Without entering into the merit of the case, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that if the applicants appear before the court below and apply for bail within four weeks from today the court(s) below shall dispose of the application expeditiously preferably on the same day, if possible, in accordance with the observations made in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 CBC page 705. Thereafter, the trial court may permit the applicants to appear through counsel and raise their objection, if any, against the initiation of trial proceedings against them at this stage of framing of charges. This relief is being granted up to the stage of framing of charges only provided the applicants after securing bail (1) furnish an undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial court that their counsel will remain present on their behalf and will represent them on each and every date, (2) they will not raise any objection as to the actual presence of the person who is facing trial, (3) no objection shall be raised that the evidence is being recorded in their absence, (4) an undertaking will also be given to the effect that they will be present before the court whenever called upon to do so at any stage. These directions are being accorded in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited, reported in 2001 Crl. Law Journal page 4250.
Till the aforesaid period of three weeks, order regarding non bailable warrant, if any shall be kept in abeyance.
With these observations this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010 ML/-