Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2334 (ALL)

Arun Kumar v. State of U. P.

2014-08-05

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make correction in the memo of the petition. 2. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the S.S.T.No.254 of 2013 under sections 394, 504, 506 IPC PS.Civil Lines, District Budaun and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the opposite party no.2 is relative of applicant nos.2 & 3 who wanted to share in the property, hence on the false and concocted story the impugned complaint has been filed. However, the applicants were summoned though no such incident took place. Against that revision was preferred. However, before admission revision was rejected for want of prosecution. The present complaint being malicious is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer and submitted that after rejection of revision, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 6. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. At this stage no finding can be recorded whether the applicants were involved in the incident or not. It will be examined by the court concerned at the appropriate stage on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. 7. However, if discharge application is filed through counsel on behalf of the applicants within thirty days, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same expeditiously on merit by a speaking and reasoned order at appropriate stage, in accordance with law. 8. Till disposal of the discharge application no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 9. If discharge application is rejected and the applicants appear before the courts below within four weeks and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, 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 . 10. With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.