Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1836 (ALL)

Arun Sharma v. State of U. P.

2014-06-09

HARSH KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 07.12.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mawana, District-Meerut on protest petition No. 555 of 2013, Anjali Sharma Vs. Arun Sharma and others filed against the final report no. 29 of 2013 dated 11.07.2013 in Case Crime No. 101 of 2013, under sections 323, 352, 452, 506 IPC by which the appliants were summoned under sections 452, 506 IPC. 3. According to applicant Smt. Anjali Sharma lodged a first information report that the case crime no. 525 of 2012 regarding cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry is pending for investigation and in the meantime on 15.02.2013, the husband, Jeth and son of Jeth, armed with fire arms had entered in her Maika and fired with threatning of death. On above first information report, final report was filed by the police and upon protest petition by the complainant, the applicants was summoned under sections 452, 506 IPC. The applicants have not challenged the impugned order before the Sessions Judge under section 397 Cr.P.C. and has come forward to this Court. It is settled view of law that upon final report in protest petition the Magistrate may (i) accept final report (ii) may direct for further investigation (iii) may treat the protest petition as complaint or (iv) may reject the final report and summon the accused. Hence the learned Magistrate was fully empowered for summoning the accused persons and rejecting the final report. 4. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, learned counsel for the applicants have failed to show the abuse of process of any court so as to justify interference of this Court for securing the ends of justice. The prayer for quashing of the summoning order is refused. 5. However, it is directed that if the applicants 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. 6. 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. 6. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for 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, necessary coercive action shall be taken against them. The application is finally disposed off accordingly.