Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shailendra Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants, namely, Shri Om Yadav, Ashok Kumar Yadav, Vikas Verma, Driver Yadav and Mata Singh for quashing the summoning order dated 05.09.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda in Case No. 95 of 2010, Crime No. 137 of 2009, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) X S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Tarabganj, District Gonda as well as charge sheet no. 93 of 2009 dated 30.8.2009 and subsequent proceeding thereof.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At last he submitted that the applicants may be given some time to surrender before the court below and suitable direction be issued for considering their bail applications.
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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings including summoning order dated 05.09.2010 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within one month from today and apply for bail, their bail applications shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and judgement of Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
For a period of one month from today or till their surrender 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, appropriate action shall be taken against them in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 Manoj