Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1171 (ALL)

Onkar Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-04-01

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing 20the proceedings of Charge-sheet No.37/2016 in Case No.232/2016 (Case Crime No.532/2015), under Sections 376/511/323/504/506 IPC, P.S. Khair, Aligarh. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for applicants is that there is strong previous enmity between the parties as the applicants filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C against O.P. No.2, which was registered as a compliant, in which statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C has been recorded, but in retaliation thereto, O.P. No.2, who is none other than the daughter-in-law of applicant no.1, has lodged an FIR in respect of alleged occurrence dated 26.9.2015, in which she is medically examined on 18.11.2015, whereas her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C is recorded as late as on 16.1.2016, i.e., after almost 3 & 1/2 months. It is thus submitted in the light of the background circumstances, that the prosecution of the applicants, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of O.P. No.2, is an abuse of the process of the Court, which is liable to be quashed. 4. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. 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 the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283. The prayer is refused. 5. However, it is directed that if applicant(s) appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and Another Vs. The prayer is refused. 5. However, it is directed that if applicant(s) appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously 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. 6. For a period of six weeks from today or till the applicant(s) surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant(s). However, in case, the applicant(s) 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.