Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1071 (ALL)

Pyari Devi v. State of U. P.

2014-04-02

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no.4533 of 2010, under section 465, 466, 120-B IPC, P.S. Raunapuar, District Azamgarh including summoning order dated 11.8.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.24 and the revisional order dated 10.12.2013 and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there was a civil dispute in between the parties. The revision has already been rejected against the summoning order. The complaint was lodged on the basis of false allegation hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer and submitted that present application has been preferred after rejection of the revision hence same is not maintainable even on merit. 5. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. Since the disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The defence version of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage. 6. If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicants within 30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. 7. Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. 8. However, if discharge application is rejected, applicants appear before the courts below within 30 days and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in view of the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 . 9. With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.