Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2903 (ALL)

Mahaveer and Others v. State of U. P. and Another

2011-12-20

R.D.KHARE

body2011
Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 12.05.2011, 19.07.2011 and 26.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, District Agra in Criminal Case No. 1141 of 2009 (State Vs. Runda Ram and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandara, District Agra, whereby non-bailable-warrant as well as process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., has been issued against the applicants. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.2 is already enlarged on bail. It is further contended 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. 4. 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 Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be 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. 5. The prayer for quashing the orders is refused. 6. However, it is directed that the applicant nos. 5. The prayer for quashing the orders is refused. 6. However, it is directed that the applicant nos. 1 and 3 namely Mahaveer and Teekam Singh, shall 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 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 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 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. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.