Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 631 (ALL)

Pradeep v. State of U. P.

2014-02-19

VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Virendra Vikram Singh,J. : - Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case no.221 of 2013, under Sections 395, 397, 452, IPC, P.S. Itmatpur, District Agra, pending in the Court of Special Judge, D.A.A., Agra including the order dated 22.11.2013. 3. It has been argued that the present prosecution has been lodged with all malafides to take revenge and to deter the applicants from prosecuting the case launched on their behalf earlier to the present complaint. 4. The arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant may make out a good case for false implication of the applicants, but it does not tell of the abuse of the process and in no case it can be a sufficient ground for quashing the summoning order or the proceedings of the criminal case. The prayer for quashing the same is, hereby, declined. 5. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today along with the certified copy of this order and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009(4) SCC 437 , after hearing the public prosecutor. 6. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive process shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them and no protection of this order shall be available to them. 7. It is being made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the subordinate court shall exercise its independent discretion in deciding the application for bail. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.