Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 504 (ALL)

Hari Lal Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-02-10

MUKHTAR AHMAD

body2017
JUDGMENT Mukhtar Ahmad,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 27.06.2016, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 746 of 2014 under Sections 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Act, police station Khaga, District Fatehpur. Further proceeding of the case is also prayed to be stayed. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are real brothers; that a registered sale deed was executed by Ram Pal Singh, their father in favour of wife of applicant no.1- Prema Devi, wife applicant no. 2 and Smt. Sushila Devi wife of another brother Ajai Singh on 4.2.2012, as per his sweet will after taking sale consideration. It is submitted that a complaint was filed on 15.10.2014 on which applicants are summoned by the court concerned without considering the actual facts, in wrong perspective. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order is refused. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order is 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 disposal of the application for grant of 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 off.