Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2380 (ALL)

Nrashyant Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-08-07

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the Complaint Case No.597/2013 under section 406, 506 I.P.C. PS. Sadar District Agra and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no.6 is wife of the complainant opposite party no.2. Others applicants are family members. Since the report was lodged from side of the applicants and after statement applicant no.6 again went to live with the husband. Subsequently she was again tortured and compelled to leave the matrimonial house, hence another report was lodged because in earlier case Final Report was submitted. Thereafter in counter blast the impugned complaint has been filed against the applicants with the allegation that in absence of the complainant she took away the cash of Rs.25,000/-and jewellery. When it was demanded, they abused and threatened and items were not returned. Non bailable warrant has been issued. The summoning order is of month of February, 2014, even the latches has not been explained. 4. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. Whether the offence under section 406 I.P.C. is made out or not and whether the jeweleries are belongs to the applicant no.6, these aspects are required to be considered by the court concerned afresh before further proceeding against the applicants. Since it requires appreciation of evidence, hence at this initial stage no interference is required. 5. 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. 6. Till disposal of the discharge application no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 7. 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. 7. 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 . If due to any reason the bail application could not be disposed off same day, the applicants may be released on interim bail till disposal of the bail application. 8. With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.