Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2363 (ALL)

Sayama v. State of U. P.

2015-08-12

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. List revised. None appears to press this application on behalf of the applicant. Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present who has been heard along with learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 02.08.2014 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amroha in Complaint Case No. 392 of 2014 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Gajraula, District J.P. Nagar (now Amroha) 3. On the request of learned counsel for the applicant, another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2015, had referred the matter to mediation centre. The Incharge mediation centre vide its report dated 02.05.2015 had reported that parties are not willing for mediation, copy of which report is on record. 4. It has been averred in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. 5. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen 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 lastly 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. The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 8. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, her prayer for bail, be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against her. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 undertakes to inform learned counsel for the applicant about the order passed today in writing within 48 hours. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.