Allahabad High Court
Ram Chandra vs State Of U.P.Through Investiganj ... on 19 September, 2017
Bench: Satya Narain Agnihotri
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?"A.F.R."
Court No. - 15
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 212 of 2009
Applicant :- Ram Chandra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Through Investiganj Officer,P.S.Manpur,Sitapur
Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Satya Narain Agnihotri,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State and have gone through the record.
2. Applicant Sri Ram Chandra instituted this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 140 of 2008, arising out of Crime No. 522 of 2007, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station Manpur, District Sitapur.
3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that the native villagers were inimical with the applicant thats why they have made complaint against him and with the connivance of villagers of the applicant village Sub-inspector Dujai Ram Bhaskar submitted a charge-sheet No.21-A of 2008, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act.
4. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that according to the prosecution 40 liters kerosene oil was recovered from Sri Kalika Prasad who is neither the accused nor witness in this very matter. Prosecution did not tried to prosecute Sri Kalika Prasad as an accused, reason best know to it.
5. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that Sri Kalika Prasad who was arrested with 40 liters kerosene oil near the bridge of canal of Manpur who admitted and confessed that this kerosene oil was given to him for selling by Ram Chandra to some one else. He further submitted that there is only the evidence of Sri Kalika Prasad against the applicant who is neither the accused nor witness in this very case.
6. Learned AGA opposed and submitted that Sri Kalika Prasad was arrested on 29.10.2007 near the bridge of canal of Manpur and 40 liters kerosene oil was recovered from his possession and at the time of recovery of kerosene oil and arrest of Sri Kalika Prasad, he confessed and admitted that this kerosene oil was given to him by license holder of fair prise shop Manpur, Sri Ram Chandra for sealing to some one else. He further submitted that investigation was completed against the applicant after the instigation of Sri Kalika Prasad thats why the charge-sheet No.21-A of 2008 was submitted against the applicant. Prior to this, the investigation was completed and charge-sheet No. 21 of 2008 was filed against Sri Kalika Prasad, which is not submitted by the applicant in this very case.
7. Learned AGA further submitted that the annexure no.6 which is filed by the applicant shows that there is a case pending against Sri Kalika Prasad also in which learned trial court mentioned the name of party as 'Kalika Prasad etc'.
8. Learned A.G.A. opposed the application and submitted that learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order after due application of mind and considering relevant materials. It is further submitted that there is abundant evidence on the record to summon and try the applicant.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that summoning order is liable to be quashed on the grounds canvassed before this Court. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
11. The prayer for quashing of summoning order is refused.
12. However, it is directed that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply 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 derangement 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 no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. It is being made clear that in case the applicant failed to surrender before the concerned court within the period indicated herein above, this application shall stand dismissed without any further reference to this Court.
13. Subject to the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.9.2017/VKG
