Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2239 (ALL)

Pramod v. State of U. P.

2016-06-27

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Vinod Singh for the applicants, and A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer that during pendency of this application, operation of the summoning order dated 27.8.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Aligarh in Complaint Case No.501 of 2015 (Banti alias Ravindra Pal Singh vs. Suresh) under Sections 452, 323,354, 504, 506, IPC and order dated 4.6.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No.237 of 2016 (Pramod Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) may be stayed. He further prayed for stay the further proceeding of Complaint Case No.501 of 2015, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Aligarh. 3. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 4. From perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie 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, exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 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, 2005 SCC(Cr) 283. 5. In this view of the matter, the prayer of the applicants is refused. 6. 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 judgment 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 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 bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 7. It is made clear that 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 petition is disposed of.