Allahabad High Court
Sudama Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2017
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21115 of 2017
Applicant :- Sudama Singh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Badan,Shivajee Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 11.7.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai as well as entire proceeding of complaint case no. 143 of 2012, Darshan Singh Ahirwar Vs. Sudama Singh Yadav, under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act, Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an Assistant Engineer in department of P.W.D. Jhansi and a construction of the building of I.T.I. was going on at Vikas Khand Rampura district Jalaun. About said construction the departmental enquiry has made and as per order of higher authority the applicant has made technical enquiry and reached at the place of incident where he found many fault and illegality in the construction work then he enquired from Junior Engineer Sri R.K.Singh Rathor then he misbehaved with the applicant and also made filthy language and also beaten by Sri Rathor and about his conduct the applicant has lodged a first information report against Sri Raj Kumar Singh Rathor on 16.9.2011 at police station Rampura District Jalaun which is being registered as case crime no. 910 of 2011 under sections 353, 332, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The opp. party no. 2 has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the applicant with collusion of Sri Raj Kumar Singh Rathor. In fact, no offence is made out against the applicant. The summoning order dated 11.7.2013 was not in the knowledge of the applicant. In the month of June, 2017 the applicant came to know about proceeding of aforementioned complaint case. It has further been submitted that in this case N.B.W. has been issued against the applicant. In fact no such incident has taken place. False story has been concocted by the opp. party no. 2.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that the applicant has been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicant to face trial. There is no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order dated 11.7.2013. The applicant did not appear or surrender before the court concerned due to which N.B.W. has been issued against the applicant and there is no ground to quash the summoning order dated 11.7.2013 as well as entire proceeding of the aforementioned case.
A perusal of record shows that the applicant has been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The opp. party no. 2 in his complaint it has mentioned that on 16.9.2011 at 2.30 p.m. the applicant committed marpit with him. It has further been mentioned that in this incident the opp. party no. 2 has sustained injuries. Learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicant to face trial 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act. I find no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order dated 11.7.2013. The Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 11.7.2013 as well as entire proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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 applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.8.2017
Gss
