Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13758 of 2018 Applicant :- Surendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have challenged the order dated 13.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.5, Hathras dismissing Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2017 (Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) filed by the applicant challenging the summoning order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Complaint Case No. 333 of 2016 (Sonveer Singh Vs. Surendra Singh and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mursan, District-Hathras.
A perusal of the impugned summoning order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Magistrate, copy of which has been appended as Annexure-4 to the affidavit will go to show that the same contains a clear recital that the complainant in support of his complaint has got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and has produced his witnesses, who have been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Apart from the aforesaid, the complainant in support of his case has got adduced another witness namely Surendra Singh as C.W.-1 and has filed certain documentary evidence. In support of the injury sustained by him, the complainant has relied upon the medical prescription as well as X-ray report issued by the Hospital at Hathras as well as some other documents also. The affidavit filed in support of the present application runs into as many as 15 paragraphs but the factum with regard to the filing of the medical report pertaining to the complianant has neither been controverted nor the same has been challenged. In view of the aforesaid, the recital contained in paragraph 3 of the impugned summoning order, remains uncontroverted. Thus no case for interference is made out. The present application fails and is accordingly dismissed.
However, Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that interest of justice would be served in case a direction is issued to the court below to decide the bail application of the present applicants expeditiously.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is provided that in case the applicants appear before the before the court below and apply for bail, the court below shall decide the bail application of the applicants expeditiously in the light of the observation made by this Court in the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 YK