Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1289 (ALL)

Ram Prit @ Tan Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-04-07

SUNEET KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 19.11.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.140 of 2014 (Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Ram Prit @ Tan Singh), under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C., Police Station-Captainganj, District-Kushinagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magisrate Kushinagar. 3. 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 submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions 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. 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. 4. The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused. 5. However, it is provided that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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. 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. 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. 6. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 7. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted to the applicants to appear and surrender before the court concerned. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.