Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1852 (ALL)

Malkiya v. State of U. P.

2014-06-11

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 proceedings of summoning order dated 19.10.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.305 of 2013 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S.JSeohara, District Bijnor pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.2, Budaun. 3. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is 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. 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 applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 5. In Monica Kumar Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781 , Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that: - “Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.” 6. In view of discussions made above, the applicants have failed to show abuse of process of any of the courts below and there is no sufficient ground requiring setting aside the impugned orders or for interference therein to secure the ends of justice. 7. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of summoning is refused. 8. In view of discussions made above, the applicants have failed to show abuse of process of any of the courts below and there is no sufficient ground requiring setting aside the impugned orders or for interference therein to secure the ends of justice. 7. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of summoning is refused. 8. However, it is provided 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 down by Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290, as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. The application is finally disposed off accordingly.