Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 530 (ALL)

Dalveer Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-02-14

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2017
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard counsel for the applicants, and A.G.A. appearing for the State. The Computer Section has reported that earlier one application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. The applicants have also filed uncertified copy of the order by which Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.10216 of 2015 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to prosecute the remedy of revision. This application has been filed by the applicants challenging the revisional court's order dated 5.7.2016. In view of judgment of Supreme Court in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni (1997) 4 SCC 241 revisional order can be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Thus, the application is maintainable. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.7.2016 in Criminal Revision No.105 of 2016 (Dalveer Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Bulandshahar as well as summoning order dated 16.12.2013 of the Complaint Case No.290 of 2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M., Khurja, Bulandshahar (Yogesh Kumar vs. Dalveer Singh and others) under Section 406 , I.P.C. P.S. Pahasu, district Bulandshahr. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. From perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court, exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 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, 2005 SCC(Cr) 283. In this view of the matter, the prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 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, 2005 SCC(Cr) 283. In this view of the matter, the prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused. However, it is provided that in case 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 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 bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. It is made clear that 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 petition is disposed of.