Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24845 of 2018 Applicant :- Vijendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the Complaint Case No.172 of 2015 (Smt. Brijesh vs. Vijendra and others) as well as summoning order dated 09.01.2016 under sections 406 IPC passed by Additional A.C.J.M./Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bulandshahr and the order dted 12.07.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Court No. 2 Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision NO.110 of 2017 (Vijendra Singh vs. Smt. Brijesh and another).
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Opposite party no. 2 is daughter-in-law of the applicant and the husband of the opposite party no. 2 expired. The entire Streedhan has been returned to her but even then this false case has been slapped against him with a view to harassing him. This is nothing but a malicious prosecution. The proceedings of the said complaint case deserve to be dismissed. If proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
Perused both the impugned order dated 09.01.2016 passed by the A.C.J.M./Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Bulandshahar as well as the order dated 12.07.2018 of revisional court in which the said order has been upheld. This Court does not find any infirmity in both the orders. At this stage the evidence which has been adduced cannot be disbelieved.
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 and 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 AU