Allahabad High Court
Chandra Bhushan And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 August, 2016
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21632 of 2016
Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Namit Srivastava,Shiva Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and also learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State and have taken through the record.
The instant petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 5.2.2015 in Complaint Case No.2580 of 2013 (Manorama Gautam Vs. Chandra Bhushan and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chandauli, district Chandauli pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandauli.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case on the basis of false allegations made in the complaint. The marriage of the opposite party no.2 was performed with the applicant no.2 on 11.2.2012. The learned Magistrate passed the order dated 5.2.2015 after recording the statement of the complainant and of the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. without sifting the allegations made in the complaint. Further the applicants are being prosecuted on the dint of aforesaid complaint made by the opposite party no.2 for ill-treatment and cruelty. The prosecution of the applicants on the basis of false allegations in the complaint being sheer abuse of process of law deserves to be vitiated.
Per contra learned AGA contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any error. The allegations made in the complaint cannot be stifled at the very inception. The applicants will have ample opportunity to rake up their defence.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments of the learned AGA for the State, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against the applicants. Cognizance taken by the court below, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial suffers from no illegality and as such the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Crl) 192.where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Having considered rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not see any justifiable ground to quash the summoning order passed by the court below in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
However, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case applicants appear before the court concerned in the aforesaid case within 30 days and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law. In case the bail application application is not decided on the same day, the applicant nos. 3 and 4, namely Soni Devi and Sukhdai shall be released on interim bail till the disposal of the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 3.8.2016
RU
