Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 575 (ALL)

Mahipal v. State of U. P.

2014-02-17

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no.05 of 2008/09, under Section 418 , 420, 466, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Madanapur as well as summoning order dated 31.3.2009 and order of non bailable warrant passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that wife of applicant no.1 and complainant, opposite party no.2 were applicant for appointment as Karyakartri. The allegation was that forged papers were filed by the applicants, however, after investigation it was found that forged paper was submitted by the complainant. Since complaint was lodged on the basis of false allegation hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. 5. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. Since it requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage no interference is required. The defence version of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage. 6. If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicants 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. 7. Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. 8. However, if discharge application is rejected, applicants 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 . 9. With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.