Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21622 of 2019 Applicant :- Surendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 04.06.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1086 of 2017 (Ravindra Singh v. Surendra and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 379 of I.P.C., Police Station - Mehdawal, District - Sant Kabir Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that due to partition suit, opposite party no. 2 Ravindra Singh has lodged this complaint maliciously, with false allegation, only to harass the applicant. As per version of complaint, the applicant and two other co-accused Ram Asrey and Prem Narayan having blunt object 'lathi-danda' and sharp-edged weapon 'bhala' (spear) entered into the residence of complainant/opposite party no. 2 Ravindra Singh and assaulted him and his father. Even so, none from the side of opposite party no. 2 has either sustained any injury or has been medically examined. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicant.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Alternative remedy is available to the applicant to submit application under Section 245(2) of the Code to get himself discharged. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Court to pass any order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
In view of above, prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
None of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicant is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicant files his bail application, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then his prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
It is further directed that in case the applicant files an application under Section 245(2) of the Code for discharge through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be decided by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.
Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicant.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 I. Batabyal