Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3289 (ALL)

Ansar Khan v. State of U. P.

2014-11-05

VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK

body2014
JUDGMENT Vijay Prakash Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings in case no.1388 of 2014 (Nazim Khan Vs. Ansar Khan and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Holagarh, District Allahabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no offence has been made out against the petitioners and the complaint was filed with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment only in counter-blast. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate without considering the entire material has illegally summoned the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the learned Magistrate after considering the entire material, including the allegations in the complaint, statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively has come to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and accordingly summoned them to face trial. It is also submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate as at present a prima facie case is to be seen and considered. 5. After considering the arguments advanced by the rival parties' counsel, the impugned summoning order along with all other material available on record, I find no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the averments made on behalf of the petitioners are related to the disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen and considered in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para- 10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceeding in the case as aforesaid is refused. 7. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioners appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and disposed of by the learned court below in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, (2009) 4, SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. If due to any reason the bail application is not disposed off same day, the petitioners may be released on interim bail till disposal of the said application. 8. For a period of thirty days from today no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of finally.