Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2494 (ALL)

Monty v. State of U. P.

2016-07-19

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2016
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the summoning order dated 29.01.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, District Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 215/9/2016 Rituraj Vs. Monty and others as well as to quash the revisional Court order dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2 Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2016 whereby criminal revision filed against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the injured Priyanshu had sustained road side accidental injuries as is authenticated by the medical report, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Learned counsel further contends that even the motor cycle was inspected, which was found to be accidented, therefore, it is contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case treating them to be assaulted upon the injured. Learned counsel has further contended no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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 petitioners. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under writ jurisdiction. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners 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. 5. The prayer for quashing the orders impugned is refused. 6. However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. 6. However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed off.