Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2520 (ALL)

Akbal v. State of U. P.

2014-08-19

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceeding of criminal complaint case no.1215 of 2003 as well as summoning order dated 19.7.2004 passed by CJM, Siddharth Nagar and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the complaint itself enmity is admitted. The alleged incident have taken place on 28.4.2003, however, injuries were got examined on 29.4.2003 at about 11.15 P.M. after 12 hours and according to doctor injuries appears 6-8 hours back. The complaint was lodged on the basis of false and fabricated injury report and as such entire proceeding as well as summoning order is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. 6. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. If contention of the applicants is correct then complaint is not maintainable. However, in view of injury report no finding can be recorded. The disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The defence version of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage. It is responsibility of the court concerned to consider the material very carefully so any innocent person is not held guilty. 7. However, in view of the aforesaid facts, if the applicants appear before the courts below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day 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.