Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1847 (ALL)

Mithilesh Kumari v. State of U. P.

2014-06-10

VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh, J. Both the two applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicants in relation to the same case and against the same order dated 3.6.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Aonla, District Bareilly, hence, they are being decided by the present common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 3. By the impugned order, the applicants have been declined to be heard on the application for discharge without their appearance before the Court. 4. In the applications under question following prayers have been made: "A. Quash the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 (Annexure-1) passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Aonla, District Bareilly, in Criminal Case No.189 of 2014, rejecting the discharge application of applicans dated 03.06.2014 (Annexure-11) under Section 239 read with Section 205 Cr.P.C. B. Quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.189 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Aonla, district Bareilly." 5. It has been argued that from the facts of the case, no offence can be said to be made out against the applicants and the applicants have wrongly been chargesheeted and in any case, their application for being heard on the point of charge has wrongly been rejected. 6. The applicants have earlier moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.11915 of 2014 with the prayer to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings which have been challenged in this application as well. 7. Thus, the second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the same prayer is not maintainable. 8. While passing the order on 17.4.2014, the Court found a prima-facie case against the applicants, a direction was issued that if the applicants appeared before the court concerned within a period of 45 days from the date of order, their application for bail shall be considered in the manner provided in the order and further during trial, the applicants shall have a right to address for their discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 9. The factual situation is that despite the order of this Court, the applicants never appeared before the Court and moved application through their counsel for their discharge. This application for their discharge has been rejected on 3.6.2014 which has much been challenged. 10. The factual situation is that despite the order of this Court, the applicants never appeared before the Court and moved application through their counsel for their discharge. This application for their discharge has been rejected on 3.6.2014 which has much been challenged. 10. It is evident from the facts of the case that the applicants never bothered nor paid any honour to the order passed in the earlier application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.11915 of 2014 and have approached this Court almost with the similar prayer. The order of the Court dated 3.6.2014 is also under challenge, whereby the court has declined to entertain the application for discharge without personal appearance of the applicants before the court. 11. By the order of this Court dated 17.4.2014, referrred to above, it was never directed by this Court that the applicants shall have a right to be heard on the point of charge without putting their appearance before the court. On the contrary, it was directed to the applicants that they shall appear before the Court within a period of 45 days from the date of order and this order admittedly has not been complied with by the applicants. 12. On this score itself, the applicants, thus, do not deserve any relief to be granted in their favour. 13. The applicants are facing trial in a warrant case instituted on police report, hence, the provisions of Chapter XIX are applicable. Chapter-XIX proceeds from Section 238 which provides the appearance of the accused persons before the Magistrate and only thereafter when the magistrate supplies the accused persons, the copies of documents provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C., that the next step of being heard on the point of charge/discharge arises. 14. Thus, in view of the orders passed by this Court, as also Section 238 Cr.P.C. the personal appearance of the applicants before the trial court was mandatory before they may be heard on the point of charge. The applicants in no case can claim that they be heard on the point of charge in contravention of the prescribed procedure. The trial court has not committed any error in passing the order under challenge. The applicants in no case can claim that they be heard on the point of charge in contravention of the prescribed procedure. The trial court has not committed any error in passing the order under challenge. The applications do not have merit and on the face of it appears to have been moved with a view to command the Court to deviate from the prescribed procedure, simply because the applicants are potential enough to approach this Court. The applications lack merits and is, hereby, rejected.