Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 424 (ALL)

Aase Ram v. State of U. P.

2017-02-06

BACHCHOO LAL

body2017
JUDGMENT BachchooLal,J. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the memo of application under section 482 C.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 606 of 2016 under section 323 and 452 I.P.C. Police Station Noorpur District Bijnor, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandpur, District Bihjnor. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the applicant no. 1 Aase Ram had lodged an N.C.R. under section 323 I.P.C. against opp. party no. 2, her husband and two others on 18.10.2015. On the basis of medical report the case was converted under section 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The investigating officer submitted chargesheet against the opp. party no. 2 and 3 others. In counterblast the opp. party no. 2 has filed this false complaint only to make pressure upon the applicants for compromise.. In fact no such incident has taken place. There is no injury report on record to support the prosecution version. The applicant no. 3 Sarvesh Devi has also sustained fractured in her right hand. She has been falsely been implicated in this case. The applicant no. 1 Aasee Ram is a driver in roadways. At the time of alleged incident, he was on his duty and was driving the bus no. U.P. 25 8344 from Nazibabad to Amroha. It has further been submitted that a false story has been concocted by opp. party no. 2. No case is made out against the applicants. The present prosecution has been instituted 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 statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. At this stage defence of accused cannot be considered. On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. At this stage defence of accused cannot be considered. The Magistrate after getting prima facie case against the applicants have summoned them to face trial under sections 323 and 452 I.P.C. A perusal of record shows that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to quash the proceedings of aforementioned case, therefore, prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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 KamlendraPratap 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 the applicants. 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.