Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 759 (ALL)

Rajwanti @ Lajjawati v. State of U. P.

2010-02-26

YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL

body2010
Hon'ble Alok K. Singh, J.- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1. 2. At this stage notice in respect of opposite party no.2 is dispensed with. 3. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 14.12.2009 arising out of of Complaint Case No.3844 of 2009, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Barabanki. 4. The allegations are factual in nature that cannot be adjudicated in the present application. There does not appear to be any sufficient cogent ground for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case. 5. As far as the summoning order is concerned, it is a well settled law that it need not be a well reasoned and detailed order. The order impugned, however, is a well reasoned order. It has been passed on the basis of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Its perusal shows that it has been passed after due application of mind and therefore I do not find any substance for either quashing the summoning order or the complaint. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate and not so grave. He also submits that the petitioners nos.1, 4 and 5 are ladies who are entitled to get the benefit of the relevant provisions contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C. in respect of granting bail in favour of ladies. Moreover all the five petitioners being law abiding citizens intend to appear before the court below to participate in the proceedings after seeking bail. 7. Without entering into the merits of the case in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that if the applicants appear before the court concerned and apply for bail within one month from today, both the courts below shall dispose of the application expeditiously, if possible, on same day in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Srimati Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 CBC page 705 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 2009 (1) JIC 677 & 2009 (2) Crimes 4 (SC). State of U.P. 2004 CBC page 705 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 2009 (1) JIC 677 & 2009 (2) Crimes 4 (SC). Thereafter, the trial court may permit the applicants to appear through counsel and raise their objection, if any, against the initiation of trial proceedings against them at the stage of framing of charges. This relief is being granted up to the stage of framing of charges only provided the applicants after securing bail (1) furnish an undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial court that their counsel will remain present on their behalf and will represent them on each and every date, (2) they will not raise any objection as to the actual presence of the person who is facing trial, (3) no objection shall be raised that the evidence is being recorded in their absence, (4) an undertaking will also be given to the effect that they will be present before the court whenever called upon to do so at any stage. These directions are being accorded in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited reported in 2001 Criminal Law Journal page 4250. 8. Till the aforesaid period of one month, bailable/non-bailable warrant, if any, shall be kept in abeyance. 9. It is also provided that if for some reasons or the other the trial court is not able to decide the bail application of the petitioners nos. 1, 4 and 5 then they may be permitted to remain on interim bail till the disposal of their regular bail. 10. With these observations this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.