Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42335 of 2019 Applicant :- Vimal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of summoning order dated 26.06.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 74 of 2018 (Rammurat Vs. Vimal and Others), under Section 392 of IPC, Police Station Rajpur, District Kanpur Dehat, pending before the Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 8.12.2017, before the Principal Judge, D.A.A., Kanpur Dehat, with contention that on 16.6.2017, while returning from bank, applicants and two others stopped his motorcycle and snatched Rs. 65,000/-. Dial 100 was informed as well as tried to lodge FIR at police station concerned. But of no avail. Then after he moved application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Statement of complainant and his witnesses was recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and then passed the impugned summoning order. The real fact of this case is that the applicant No. 1 is the owner of a tractor and he has worked in the filed of o.p. No. 2 but the full amount was not paid by o.p. No. 2, for which there was a hot talk between them, owing to this, present complaint has been filed by opposite party No. 2, with malafide intention. Hence, this application with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Kamarjahan