Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
By filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a prayer has been made by the applicants- Sudhir Verma, Smt. Subhasini, Smt. Sangeeta, Sarita and Satish Kumar to quash the impugned Complaint No. 2886/2014, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kheri District Kheri, as well as summoning order dated 04.06.2016, whereby the applicants have been summoned for facing trial, pending in the court of A.C.J. (J.D.) Court No.2, Kheri (Rampal Vs. Sudhir Verma and others) Learned counsel for the applicants made many factual submissions to demonstrate that the complaint has been filed on false and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the applicants and the court below has taken the cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and issued the process against the applicants in a cursory way, therefore the summoning order of the Magistrate, whereby the process is issued against the applicants is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants submits that all submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants is, with regard tot he factual aspects of the case which cannot be gone into by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
There can not be any doubt in the proposition that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary produced in support thereof and would that be sufficient to proceed further. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course and in coming to the decision as to whether the process should be issued the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate, at that stage, to enter into a detailed discussion of the merit or demerits of the case. A wide discretion thus has been given to the magistrate so as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because of complaint has been filed and if a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. [AIR 2015 Supreme Court 923, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1947, Smt. Nagawwa v/s. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 1998 S.C. 128, M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others].
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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the complaint as well as all summoning order is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts, the application is disposed of with direction to the trial court that if applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 20 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Muk