Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29650 of 2018 Applicant :- Srichandra And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings and summoning order dated 17.10.2017 as well as non bailable warrant issued vide order dated 26.04.2018 in Complaint Case No. 975 of 2016 (Satya Narain vs. Harish Chandra), under section 504, 506 and 356 I.P.C., P.S. Pawara, District Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the complaint case as a matter of counter blast on account of the application at Annexure no. 8 moved by various villagers against the opposite party no. 2 for taking over illegal possession over village Khalihan land; that learned trial court has passed the impugned order without due application of mind in mechanical manner; that the applicants did not commit the incident in question on 02.12.2016; that the opposite party no. 2 has filed civil suit no. 866 of 2005 against the applicants in which he has obtained order of status quo on 07.10.2016 and now on one hand he has moved application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. for disobedience of the order of the court and on the other hand filed complaint.
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 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.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicants has failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or likelihood of miscarriage of justice for prevention of which the exercise of inherent powers by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
However, if the applicants appear before the court below and moves application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 /Bhanu