Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27249 of 2018
Applicant :- Sukhbir And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Siddharth Shanker Mishra, 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 summoning order 10.1.2018 as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1668 of 2017 (Pradeep Kumar Vs. Sukhbir and others), under Sections 452, 323, 354, 506 IPC, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2. No such occurrence has taken place. No offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.If the proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to abuse of process of law.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the same.
As per the allegations made in complaint, the accused are alleged to have molested the daughter-in-law and grand daughter of the complainant and beaten up the complainant inside their house, which has been supported by the complainant and the witnesses. The said evidence cannot be dis-believed at this stage, as it would require trial.
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.
Prayer for quashing the summoning order and 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 apply 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