Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3626 (ALL)

Brijesh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2016-11-04

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the Complaint Case No. 77 of 2011 (Vasudev Sharna Tripathi Vs. Brijesh Kumar and others) under Section 394 IPC, Police Station Saujana, District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.) Lalitpur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that on the basis of same set of facts two complaints were filed in different courts at Lalitpur. Proceedings of complaint filed in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrauni, Lalitpur has been stayed on 31.5.2016 by this Court in application u/s 482 No. 18203 of 2016. It is further submitted that complaints were filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It is next submitted that from the version of the complaints as well as statement of witnesses, offences under the aforesaid Sections are not made out against the applicants. General allegations have been made in the complaints. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the proceedings of first complaint has been stayed by this court on 31.5.2016 in the application u/s 482 No. 18203 of 2016, no ground is made out to exercise the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as the proceeding of the present complaint cannot be stayed on the same ground. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused. However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.