Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3739 (ALL)

Gayatri Devi v. State of U. P. & Another

2010-12-15

RAJ MANI CHAUHAN

body2010
Raj Mani Chauhan,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate as well as perused the documents available on record. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: "It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 05.12.2009 passed by the A.C.J.M., Court No. 19, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 40 of 2008, C.C. No. 79/2007, under Sections 436, 506 IPC, Police Station Haliyapur, District Sultanpur as contained as annexure No. 5 to this petition." The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the written report of the opposite party no. 2, the police of P.S. Haliyapur registered a case at Crime No. 79/07, under Sections 436/506 IPC against the accused for investigation. The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted final report in favour of the accused. The complainant being aggrieved by the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer filed protest petition which was allowed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Sultanpur vide impugned order dated 05.12.2009 and summoned the accused. Learned counsel submits that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate only on the basis of protest petition and the affidavits filed by the complainant has summoned the accused without any evidence, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the proceeding arising out thereof is liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the impugned order. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has specifically observed that the complainant in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code has supported the prosecution case. The complainant is said to have sustained burn injures in the alleged incident. This fact is supported by his medical examination report. In this way, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer summoned the accused, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as such it does not call for any interference. This fact is supported by his medical examination report. In this way, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer summoned the accused, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as such it does not call for any interference. The petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts of the case, it is provided that in case the accused appears before the court below within four weeks from today and moves any application for bail, the same will be disposed of by both the courts below expeditiously, if possible on the same day, keeping in the view the fact that the accused is a lady. Till then no coercive steps will be taken by the court below against the accused. After expiry of four weeks from today, it will come to an automatic end.