Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 505 (ALL)

Sajju Devi v. State of U. P.

2017-02-10

MUKHTAR AHMAD

body2017
JUDGMENT Mukhtar Ahmad,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.12.2016 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Fast Track Court, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 7612 of 2016 under Sections 380, 447 I.P.C., Police Station- Badshahinaka, District- Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no.2 Smt. Kamlesh Katiyar came in the occupation of the property, belonging to the applicant no.1 Smt. Sajju, bearing No. 78 of 2005, Sabzimandi, Guliyana, Kulibazar, Police Station-Badshahinaka, District-Kanpur Devi as tenant. It is further submitted that applicant no.1 has lodged an N.C.R. against the opposite party no.2 and a compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was under taken by the opposite party no.2 that she will leave the house by April, 2016. Thereafter she vacated the house but hatching a false story the complaint was filed. It is further submitted that after recording the evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court 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 applicant has 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 summoning order is refused. Moreover, the applicant has 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 summoning order is refused. However, it is provided that in case the applicants appears 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 andlaid 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 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 of.