Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 764 (ALL)

Hakim Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-03-02

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case in Application No. 269 of 2014 (Smt. Suneeta Devi Vs. Hakim Singh and others) under Sections 156 (3) Cr.P.C. charges have been framed against Hakim Singh and Layak Singh under Sections 457, 376, 511, 504 and Smt. Brijesh Kumari under Sections 457, 323, 354 P.S. Shahganj, District Agra pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2 Agra as well as the summoning order dated 21.1.2016 passed in the aforesaid case. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that complaint was filed on the basis of improbable and unnatural story. It was further submitted that two real brothers were said to be involved in commission of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. which is not probable and possible. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 5. 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 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 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. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused. 6. However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused. 6. However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 7. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 8. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned. 9. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.