Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3796 (ALL)

Babli and Another v. State of U. P. And Another

2010-12-22

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2010
Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no.1074/9 of 2010, under Sections 379, 506 IPC, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No3, Muzaffar Nagar, and also for quashing of the summoning order dated 24.7.2010. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is the daughter-in-law of opposite party no.2 and the applicant no.2 is the son of opposite party no.2 and the allegation made against them is that they had stolen a sum of Rs.50,000/- as well as 20,000 bricks by breaking the lock of the house of opposite party no.2. It is further contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Sections 239, 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as for quashing of the summoning order, is hereby refused. The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as for quashing of the summoning order, is hereby refused. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant no.1 shall be considered by the Court below on the same day if possible, and for applicant no.2 his prayer for bail shall be considered 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 and in a recent decision in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. 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 applicants. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.