Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27196 of 2018
Applicant :- Sohan Lal And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Shivangi Bhargava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, 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 order dated 27.7.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rampur as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 3617 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Shahabad, District Rampur, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) FTC, Rampur.
Ld. Counsel for the applicants has informed the court that accused-applicant no. 1 has died, hence he is permitted to delete the name of applicant no. 1 from the array of the applicants.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no. 1 had lodged an N.C.R. u/s 323 and 504 IPC against the opposite party no. 2 and his family members on 11.5.2014 and thereafter the present complaint case has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the accused-applicants. The occurrence of this case is also alleged to have happened on 11.5.2014, which is a cross case. He further stated that the accused-applicant no. 1 has died after lodging the N.C.R. The accused-applicants have been falsely implicated. 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.
Since it is admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is a cross case, hence it is admitted to both the sides that the occurrence took place, hence there is no ground for quashing of the proceedings.
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.
Accordingly, 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 applies for bail, his 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 :- 5.9.2018
A.P. Pandey