Court No. - 32
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6357 of 2018 Applicant :- Sunil And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 7.6.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2 Mathura in Case No.1619 f 2016 as well as the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the basis of false allegation, impugned F.I.R. has been lodged in which charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken under sections 324, 506 on 17.6.2016 against which revision was preferred. The revision was allowed with the direction to consider the matter afresh regarding cognizance in other sections against which revision was preferred on behalf of the applicants before the High Court. However, that revision was rejected vide order dated 6.4.2017. He further contended that thereafter court concerned has illegally taken cognizance under sections 354B, 452, 324, 506 I.P.C. The sections might have been added at the time of framing of the charges, hence the order taking cognizance under added sections is illegal.
Alternative prayer is to issue direction for consideration of the bail application expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR 390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437.
Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that when earlier cognizance was taken, only section was 324 and 506 I.P.C. and that order was set aside by the lower revisional court against which revision preferred before the High Court was rejected.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the fact, since the trial court found that prima facie commission of offence is disclosed in other section , hence there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance under the other section also.
As far as expeditious disposal of the bail application is concerned, no such direction is required. However, in view of the aforesaid facts, if the applicants appear before the courts below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Rk