Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 231 (ALL)

MIRZA AFSAR BEG v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-01-20

RAMESH SINHA

body2014
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Three Photocopies of the orders passed by this Court in 482 Cr.P.C. Application as well as in the two Writ Petitions filed by the applicants are produced by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2/complainant, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/complainant. This 482Cr.P.C. application has been filed to set aside the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the IVth Fast Track Court, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No.281/2010 and consequential criminal proceeding arising out by complaint case no.412 of 2010 ( Tariq Ayoob Vs. State) u/ss 386, 504 & 506 Police Station Shahganj District Jaunpur pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist District Jaunpur. 3. It has been pointed out by Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that a material concealment of facts has been made by the applicants in the present 482 Cr.P.C. application who were initially summoned by the Magistrate vide order dated 12.5.2010 under section 504 and 506 I.P.C. against which the opposite party no.2/complainant preferred a criminal revision no.281 of 2010 challenging the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by the Magistrate and the lower revisional Court vide order dated 16.8.2010 has set aside the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by the Magistrate and? remanded the matter to the Magistrate to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law. He further pointed out that in pursuance of order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the lower revisional Court the learned Magistrate vide order dated 3.3.2011 summoned the applicants for the offence under sections 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. The applicants, thereafter filed, 482 Application No.9329 of 2011 which was disposed of by another Bench of this Court on 25.3.2011 directing the accused/applicants to file an application under section 245( 2) Cr.P.C. within a period of 30 days for discharge and further directed till the disposal of above mentioned application the bailable warrant/N.B.W., if any, issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance. 4. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid 482 application the applicants on 22.4.2011 moved a discharge application before the Magistrate for discharge for the offence under sections 386, 504 and 506 I.P.C. which was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 20.9.2011. 4. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid 482 application the applicants on 22.4.2011 moved a discharge application before the Magistrate for discharge for the offence under sections 386, 504 and 506 I.P.C. which was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 20.9.2011. The applicants, thereafter, challenged the order dated 20.9.2011 of the Magistrate before the lower revisional Court i.e. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur which also dismissed the revision of the applicants vide order dated 3.11.2011 in Criminal Revision No. Nil of 2011. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur the applicant no.2 Smt. Kahkashan Khan, who is the Manager of the Institution filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.21623 of 2011 ( Smt. Kahkashan Khan Vs. State of U.P. another)before this Court which disposed of by another Bench of this Court on 17.11.2011 by which the order passed by the lower revisional Court was affirmed and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the Court concerned within three weeks from today ( from the date of said order) and applied for bail, her prayer for bail be considered by the courts below keeping in view a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 ( 57) ALR 290 as affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 ( 3) ADJ 322 ( SC) and further for a period of three weeks no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. Similarly, the applicant no.1 Mirza Afsar Baig who is the husband of applicant no.2 also filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.23939 of 2011 ( Mirza Afsar Baig Vs. State of U.P. 2009 ( 3) ADJ 322 ( SC) and further for a period of three weeks no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. Similarly, the applicant no.1 Mirza Afsar Baig who is the husband of applicant no.2 also filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.23939 of 2011 ( Mirza Afsar Baig Vs. State of U.P. Another) challenging the order dated 20.9.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jaunpur, in Criminal Case No.612 of 2010, under Sections 386, 504 and 506 I.P.C. whereby the discharge application under section 245( 2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the lower revisional Court vide order dated 3.11.2011, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. Nil of 2011 and another Bench of this Court on 4.1.2012 has dismissed the said writ petition filed by the applicant no.1 by confirming the orders dated 20.9.2011 and 3.11.2011 of the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge respectively and the applicant no.1 was directed to surrender before the Court concerned within three weeks from today ( from the date of said order) and applied for bail, his prayer for bail be considered by the courts below keeping in view a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 ( 57) ALR 290 as affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 ( 3) ADJ 322 ( SC) and further for a period of three weeks no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 7. Thereafter, the present 482 application has been filed by the two applicants who are husband and wife running an Institution namely Anwar Beg Inter College, Shahganj, Jaunpur by concealing aforesaid material facts of filing a 482 Cr.P.C. Application No.9329 of 2011 before this Court against the order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the Magistrate which was dismissed by this Court on 25.3.2011 and further approaching this Court against the order dated 3.11.2011 of lower revisional Court i.e. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur which they challenged in the aforementioned two writ petitions which too was dismissed by this Court on 17.11.2011 and 4.1.2012 respectively confirming the said order passed by the lower revisional Court and they have filed the present 482 application challenging the order dated 16.8.2010 by which the criminal revision no. 281 of 2010 filed by the complainant against the summoning order dated 12.5.2010 was rejected and the matter was remanded by the the lower revisional Court. 8. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants when questioned about the said material concealment of facts in the present 482 Cr.P.C. application as has been pointed out by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 he could not give a plausible explanation about the facts and only stated that the applicants have not disclosed the said facts to him hence he could not mentioned the same. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing this Court's order dated 25.3.2011 passed in 482 Cr.P.C. Application No.9329 of 2011, orders dated 17.11.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no.21623 of 2011 and order dated 4.1.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no.23939 of 2011 which were filed by the applicants and on the material on record it is apparent that the 482 Cr.P.C. Application no.9329 of 2011 which was dismissed by this Court confirming the order dated 3.3.2011 by which the applicants were summoned for the offence under sections 386, 504 and 506. Writ Petition no.23939 of 2011 which were filed by the applicants and on the material on record it is apparent that the 482 Cr.P.C. Application no.9329 of 2011 which was dismissed by this Court confirming the order dated 3.3.2011 by which the applicants were summoned for the offence under sections 386, 504 and 506. Further they were directed to move an application for discharge under section 245 ( 2) Cr.P.C. and their application for discharge was rejected and dismissed by the lower revisional Court i.e the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur on 3.11.2011 and aggrieved by the same applicants filed the aforesaid two writ petitions challenging the order dated 3.11.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur which too was dismissed by other Benches of this Court on 17.11.2011 and 4.1.2012 respectively, which are a matter of record and photocopy of the said orders have been produced by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 shows that there is material concealment of facts by the applicants who have obtained the interim order from this Court on 23.2.2012 in the present 482 Cr.P.C. Application without disclosing the filing of the earlier 482 Cr.P.C. Application and filing of two writ petitions by them which too were dismissed and they have challenged the order 16.8.2010 passed by Session Judge in the criminal revision no.281 of 2010 filed by the complainant/opposite party no.2 against the order dated 12.5.2010 by which the Magistrate had summoned applicants initially under sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. which has already lost its significance as much water has flown out since then and it has merged in the subsequent orders passed by the courts below as well as the orders passed by this Court. 10. It appears that applicants have taken the Courts as a tool to play and have misused the process of law at their own whims, such practice cannot be encouraged by this Court and the same is depreciated on the other hand, in strong words. This Court is already over burden with the large number of cases waiting for its disposal and the deceitful means adopted by such litigants time and again in a criminal case registered against them and habit of approaching this Court initiating multiplicity proceedings for obtaining orders in their favour and lingering on the proceedings at their leisure cannot be tolerated by this Court at all. 11. 11. Taking into account the conduct of the applicants who have not approached this Court with clean hands and have concealed the material facts in the present 482 application and they have tried to mislead this Court and obtained the interim order in their favour by misusing the processes of law, hence a cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on them. The cost shall be deposited by both the applicants in equal proportion i.e. 25,000/-each within one month from today in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. The amount so deposited shall further be deposited by the C.J.M. concerned in the account of District Legal Cell, Jaunpur, if the applicants fails to deposit the cost the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from them in accordance with law. C.J.M. concerned shall further ensure that if the amount is not deposited as directed above he shall pass necessary orders to transmit the matter for recovery of the amount to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur who shall proceed against the applicants for recovery of the amount as directed above forthwith, in accordance with law. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the present 482 application is dismissed and the interim order dated 23.2.2012 is hereby vacated. 13. As the proceedings of the case has been lingered on by the applicants and the case pertains to the year 2010 hence, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 14. Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the C.J.M. and District Magistrate concerned for its compliance.