Ankit And Another vs State Of U.P. & Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 1648 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22334 of 2015
 

 
Applicant :- Ankit And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- P.C. Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2448 of 2014, under Sections 354, 354-Kha, 427, 323, 506 IPC, P.S.- Mandi Dhanauri, District Amroha, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, as well as summoning order dated 13.3.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.

The contention is that applicants are real brothers and the applicant no.2 purchased the property along with his brother Kapil on 26.5.2014, in which at the stage of mutation, an objection was filed by O.P. no.2, but instead of contesting the said objection, the said O.P. No.2 has lodged the aforesaid complaint proceedings out of sheer malice, mischief and vendetta only with a view to harass the applicants, which is an abuse of the process of the Court.

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. 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 cannot be considered at this stage.

The prayer claimed is refused.

However, it is directed that if the applicant(s) 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 expeditiously 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 six weeks from today or till the applicant(s) surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicant(s) 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.

Order Date :- 6.8.2015

N.S.Rathour