Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 385 (ALL)

Akbari Begam v. State of U. P.

2017-01-31

BACHCHOO LAL

body2017
JUDGMENT Bachchoo Lal,J. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.4430 of 2016 (Noori @ Noor Fatima vs. Akbari Begam and others) under Sections 147, 148, 392, 436, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar including the order dated 05.05.2016 and 12.08.2016, pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate- IInd, Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an F.I.R. was lodged by applicants nos.1 and 2 against the husband of opposite party no.2 and two others under Section 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. Only to make pressure upon the applicants to withdraw the said case, this false complaint has been lodged against the applicants. It has further been submitted that in fact, the applicants have not committed the alleged offence. False story has been concocted by the complainant. The complainant has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as complaint, vide order dated 05.05.2016. On the basis of statement of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants have been summoned to face trial. The summoning order is not according to law. No offence is made out against the applicants and they have falsely been implicated in the present case only for the purpose of harassment. On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statement of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and also no ground to quash the proceeding of aforementioned case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record as well as having considered the submission made by learned counsel for 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 the 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. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with the 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the proceeding of aforementioned case including the order dated 05.05.2016 and 12.08.2016, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, 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 application is finally disposed of.