Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28488 of 2019
Applicant :- Waqar Khan And 3 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Singh Yadav,Ajai Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.5.2019 passed by Session Judge Shahjahanpur in Criminal Revision No. 110 of 2018 arising out of summoning order dated 19.7.2018 passed by the learned J.M. I Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2018 (Arjun Lal Vs. Vaquar Khan and others), under Sections 323, 392, 506 of IPC, Police Station Ram Chandra Mission District Shahjahanpur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations as a counterblast of the case which was lodged by the applicant no. 1 Waqar Khan against opposite party no.2 Arjun Lal. It was submitted that in the impugned complaint earlier summoning order was passed by the learned court of Magistrate under Sections 323, 356, 506 of IPC vide order dated 25.9.2017 and against that Revision was filed before Sessions Judge Shahjahanpur which was allowed vide order dated 11.5.2018 and setting aside the summoning order, matter was remanded to the trial court for passing the order afresh. Thereafter, summoning order dated 19.7.2018 has been passed and Revision against that order has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.5.2019. Learned counsel submitted that impugned complaint proceedings are counterblast and no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that allegations made in the complaint constitute prima facie case and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
From perusal of record, it appears that, prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the accused-applicants. No illegality or any substantial irregularity could be pointed out in the impugned order or in the summoning order. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant requires appreciation of evidence and adjudication of questions of fact, which is not permissible under jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Perusal of the record shows that learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur has passed the impugned order dated 19.7.2018 by considering all relevant aspects of the matter. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order and thus, no case for exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering material on record, no case for interference has been made out.
The prayer as made above is hereby refused.
However, considering the allegations made in the complaint and material on record, this application is finally disposed off with direction that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law including the 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 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 applicants surrender in the court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Courts below within the aforesaid period, coercive action may be taken against them.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Mohit