Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19266 of 2018
Applicant :- Sudama And 12 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balbeer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 29.6.2016 and cognizance order dated 15.11.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4867 of 2016 (State Vs. Sudama and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 428 of 2016, under Sections- 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 336 I.P.C., Police Station- Tajganj, District- Agra, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III Agra.
The solitary argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been charged and cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate by an order passed on a printed proforma. Only Section and date has been filled up by hand. It is thus submitted that the learned Magistrate has not made any application of mind before taking cognizance of the offence alleged against the applicants. However, perusal of the order reveals that though it appears that the order has been passed on a pre-format, perusal of the same indicate that the learned Magistrate had examined the case diary as also the document submitted by the police and that on perusal thereof the learned Magistrate has expressed opinion that offence under Section 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452 and 336 IPC stood made out.
At present, it cannot said that there does not exist any material on the basis of the applicants have been summoned. Consequently, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants cannot be accepted. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involve factual dispute and appraisal of evidence.
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 at this stage. 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 prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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.
However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
It is made clear that the applicants will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Mini