Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 209 (ALL)

Samandar Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-01-16

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2017
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Ashish Mishra for the applicants. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.12.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Muzaffanragar in Criminal Revision No.351 of 2015(Samandar and others vs. Harpal Singh and another) and the order dated 28.8.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar summoning the applicants in Complaint Case No.9134/9 of 2014 (Harpal Singh vs. Samandar and others) under Section 302 , 506, I.P.C. P.S. Fugana, district Muzaffarnagar. According to the applicants the incident took place on 12.6.2014 of which F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No.120 of 2014 by Indrapal, father of applicants-1 to 3. According to the F.I.R. story accused Rajeev along with Hansraj, Amit armed with countrymade pistols came at Kolhu of the first informant where his sons Satendra alias Kala and Bedu were present. They caused firearm injuries to them due to which they had died on the spot. On the noise of gunshot the villagers chased the assailants in which Rajeev was caught on the spot and due to beating by the villagers Rajeev died on the spot. In this F.I.R. the matter was investigated by the police and charge sheet dated 6.9.2014 was submitted and the trial is pending before the court below. Thereafter Harpal Singh filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police to register an F.I.R. against Samandar Singh and others, who, according to the allegations made by Harpal Singh, had caused death of his son Rajeev on 12.6.2014. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 12.8.2014 dismissed the application under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he filed a complaint case on 10.11.2014 on which summoning order was passed on 28.8.2015. The applicants challenged the order dated 28.8.2015 in Criminal Revision No.351 of 2015, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 9.12.2015. Hence, this application has been filed. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. A perusal of the complaint shows that it clearly discloses an offence. So far as death of Rajeev is concerned, his death on 12.6.2014 at the place of occurrence is admitted. However, according to the applicants while Rajeev and other coaccused after causing firearm injuries to Satyendra alias Kala and Bedu were fleeing Rajeev was chased and caught by the villagers and was beaten by them due to which he died. So far as death of Rajeev is concerned, his death on 12.6.2014 at the place of occurrence is admitted. However, according to the applicants while Rajeev and other coaccused after causing firearm injuries to Satyendra alias Kala and Bedu were fleeing Rajeev was chased and caught by the villagers and was beaten by them due to which he died. Thus, as to which allegation is correct has to be examined by the court after recording evidence. However, at present it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose any offence. In the fact of the case F.I.R. by the side of the applicants has already been registered, 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. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned. With the aforesaid observation the application is disposed of.