Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2756 (ALL)

Vimal Kumar v. State of U. P.

2014-09-06

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. List revised. Heard. 2. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1512 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC police station Sujanganj, district Jaunpur as well as summoning order dated 12.1.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II Jaunpur and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. 3. Vide order dated 23.5.2014 matter was referred to the mediation centre. As per office report dated 17.7.2014 amount has not been deposited in compliance of order. It is matrimonial dispute. The applicants no.5 and 6 are married nand, however, they have also been implicated. They must be living separately and if they are living separately unless there is specific and reliable material complaint is not maintinable against them. The court concerned, where proceeding is pending, is expected to scrutinize the material carefully so any innocent person is not harassed, prosecuted and held guilty. Since 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. 4. If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicants no.5 and 6 within 30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. 5. Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants no.5 and 6. 6. However, if application is rejected, applicants no.5 and 6 appear before the courts below within 30 days 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 . 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 no.5 and 6 may be released on interim bail till disposal of the bail application. In respect of applicant nos.1 to 4 prayer refused. 7. However, applicants no. 1 to appear before the courts below within 30 days 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 no.1 to 4 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.