Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3829 (ALL)

Umesh v. State of U. P.

2015-12-04

OM PRAKASH VII

body2015
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in compliant Case No. 1197 of 2015 (Lokendra Vs. Yashvir and others) and case Crime No. 129 of 2013 under Section 147 , 148, 307, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rajabpur, District J. P. Nagar (Amroha). 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that challenging the summoning order passed in the aforesaid complaint, an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 48630 of 2014 was filed before this Court and this Court on 25.11.2014 passed the following order: - "This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 20.9.2013 and 5.6.2014 passed by the court below in Case No. 192/2013, pending in the court of II Addl. Civil Judge (JD)/ JM, Amroha. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants involve several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded. By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court the applicants cannot persuade the court to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The quashing of the complaint can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. As requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of three months from today or till disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier. If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material produced by the complainant does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits. It is clarified that if applicant does not avail of this order within the stipulated period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained. With the above observations, this application stands disposed of." 4. It was also submitted that in compliance of the order dated 25.11.2014 discharge application was moved which was rejected by the court concerned on 18.08.2015 on insufficient ground. It was further submitted that no offence against the applicant is made out. The court concerned did not consider this fact. With the above observations, this application stands disposed of." 4. It was also submitted that in compliance of the order dated 25.11.2014 discharge application was moved which was rejected by the court concerned on 18.08.2015 on insufficient ground. It was further submitted that no offence against the applicant is made out. The court concerned did not consider this fact. 5. Learned A.G.A. argued that applicant has approached before this Court through application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 48630 of 2014 which was disposed of on 25.11.2014 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the entire record and also the submission of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the order passed by the concerned Magistrate on 18.08.2015 on the discharge application, I am of the view that no ground is made out to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. again. The concerned Magistrate while passing the order dated 18.08.2015 has considered the fact raised at that stage. Admittedly, there was no any other evidence adduced on the complaint under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The court dealing with the matter has to see only prima-facie case. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. 7. Thus, this application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.