Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2600 (ALL)

Somesh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-08-25

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 , Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 15.12.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 378 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act police station Ammapur, district Kasganj. 3. Vide earlier order of this Court dated 15.5.2015 the matter was referred to the mediation centre on the request of the learned counsel for the applicants. 4. Report of the mediation centre dated 01.7.2015 shows that the amount which was to be deposited by the applicants before the mediation centre has not been deposited, therefore, no mediation could take place. 5. It appears that after getting the matter referred to the mediation centre, the applicants did not deposit the amount before the mediation centre and continued to enjoy the interim order granted by this Court. 6. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 7. The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused. 8. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. 8. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.