Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 716 (ALL)

Sonu Chand v. State of U. P.

2017-03-07

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT Amar Singh Chauhan,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material on record. The applicants Sonu Chand, Radhe Mohan Singh, Guddu Shahi, Chandan Singh and Ankit Shahi through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 13.05.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 61 of 2014 (Rana Pratap Singh vs. Radhe Mohan Singh and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Gagaha, District-Gorakhpur. 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 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. Only in the cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, prayer of the applicants are refused. Insofar as the prayer of the applicants for consideration of their bail application on the same day in light of the law declared by the seven judges Bench in the case of Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) is concerned, this Court notices that a Division Bench while deciding Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15609 of 2016 (Brahm Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) has observed that in light of the authoritative pronouncement so made, no separate direction needs to be made in each and every case. Writ Petition No. 15609 of 2016 (Brahm Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) has observed that in light of the authoritative pronouncement so made, no separate direction needs to be made in each and every case. Taking note of the apprehension of the learned counsels that earlier circulars of this Court issued in compliance of the Court's order have not been followed by the courts below, the Division Bench in Brahm Singh (supra) issued a further direction that in case the courts below fail to follow the law as declared in letter and spirit not only would adverse inference be drawn but also the Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against the errant judicial officer. This should clearly allay all apprehensions of the learned counsel. Taking note of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Brahm Singh (supra), this application is disposed of.