Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1343 (ALL)

Deen Bandhu Singh @ Satte Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-05-22

RANJANA PANDYA

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing of the impugned order dated 01.04.2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Criminal Case No. 1746 of 2014 (State vs Deen Bandhu Singh alias Satte Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 98 of 2014, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)X of SC/ST Act, PS Sakaldeeha, district Chandauli, whereby non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that since the Magistrate was not competent to hear and decide the discharge application, hence it was mandatory for the Magistrate to commit the matter to the court of sessions and he could not issue non-bailable warrant. It has further been contended that in application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 3810 of 2015 vide order dated 18.02.2015 this Court had granted one month's time to the accused-applicant to move an application for discharge and consequently, if the discharge application was moved within a period of one month, no coercive action was directed to be taken against the applicant. 4. Perusal of the order sheet makes it clear that the copy of the order was submitted before the lower court on 27.02.2015, but the applicant did not move any discharge application through his counsel and kept on sleeping over the matter and till date, he has not filed discharge application on the ground that discharge application can only be heard and decided by the Sessions Court after committal of the case. The learned lower court has rightly mentioned that since the discharge application has not been moved within the stipulated period granted by this Court, the protection order cannot be given to the applicant. The committal of the case could only be done by the Magistrate concerned, if the applicant would have appeared or his exemption would have been granted by the lower court. In the absence of which the lower court was justified in not committing the case. Thus, the application has no merit and is accordingly, rejected. 5. The committal of the case could only be done by the Magistrate concerned, if the applicant would have appeared or his exemption would have been granted by the lower court. In the absence of which the lower court was justified in not committing the case. Thus, the application has no merit and is accordingly, rejected. 5. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21679 of 2014 (Munawwar and 9 others vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 03.07.2014.