Allahabad High Court
Sirazuddin And Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 7 September, 2012
Bench: Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12884 of 2012
Petitioner :- Sirazuddin And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Rama Shankar Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State of U.P.
By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Bulandshahar, in Criminal Revision No. 77 of 2012, whereby the revision of the petitioners against the order dated 6.2.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Bulandshahar rejecting the application of the petitioners under section 245(2) Cr.P.C, has been dismissed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on a false and frivolous complaint, the petitioners were summoned by order dated 8.4.2011, under sections 323,504 and 506 I.P.C, which was challenged by the petitioners by an Application No.20654 of 2011, under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the aforesaid application under section 482 Cr.P.C was disposed of vide order dated 4.7.2011, with a direction that the petitioners may file an application, under section 245(2) Cr.P.C, taking such pleas as may be permissible in law and till the disposal of the application, coercive action against the petitioners was stayed. It is claimed that pursuant to the order dated 4.7.2011, the petitioners applied for discharge, under section 245(2) Cr.P.C, which was rejected by order dated 6.2.2012 and the revision against the said order has also been dismissed. It has been contended that on account of matrimonial dispute, the present complaint has been instituted with completely false allegations.
I have perused the order passed by the court below as also the material brought on record.
A perusal thereof reveals that the allegations in the complaint do, prima facie, make out commission of an offence by the petitioners and the said allegations have been duly supported by the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In this scenario, it was not permissible for the court below to hold that the complaint was groundless so as to warrant discharge of the petitioners under sub-section (2)of section 245 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below.
Thus, the prayer seeking discharge, under sub-section(2) of Section 245 Cr.P.C, is rejected.
However, it is provided that if the petitioners 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 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 petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners 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 finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 7.9.2012.G.S
