Allahabad High Court
Jai Narayan And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27881 of 2019
Applicant :- Jai Narayan And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Shri S.P. Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants are taken on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 532 of 2019 (Vidya Devi Vs. Jai Narayan and three others) as well as summoning order dated 26.06.2019 and N.B.W. order dated 08.07.2019 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, under Sections 323, 354-B, 392, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gyanpur, District - Bhadohi pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that civil suits are pending between the parties. Number of criminal cases have also been started by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants. Son of the applicant no. 2 is motor mechanic. He used to repair the vehicles owned by district judiciary. It is further submitted that due to that reason, on the day of filing of complaint, statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Referring to the order-sheet annexed with the application, it is also argued that in the present complaint extending undue favour to the complainants, short dates were fixed and summoning order was also passed hurriedly. Process of summon was directed to be served upon the applicants on the next day of the passing of the summoning order itself. All the witnesses examined in the matter are interested witnesses. Fair procedure for conducting the enquiry in the complaint have not been followed. One FIR was also lodged subsequently by the husband of the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants on the basis of false facts. Officials of District Court are also taking undue interest in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and due to that reason local police also reached at the house of the applicants on the next day of the passing of summoning order. Present complaint was filed in counter-blast with mala-fide intention to create pressure to handover the possession of disputed land in favour of opposite party no. 2, which is subject matter of civil suits. Thus, referring to the law laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, prayer is made to allow the application and to set aside the summoning order.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that several cases have also been started on behalf of applicants against the opposite party no. 2 and her son and other family members. Summoning order passed in the matter is in accordance with law. The impugned order does not suffers from illegality and infirmity. Merely on this ground that son of opposite party no. 2 is motor mechanic and used to repair vehicles owned by district judiciary, it cannot be held that summoning order against the applicants, was passed extending undue favour to the opposite party no. 2. Referring to para no. 16 of the affidavit of the application, it is also argued that interim order in one civil suit has been granted in favour of applicant no. 1. If official or officers of civil court were favouring the opposite party no. 2, how applicant no. 1 has got interim order in his favour. Grounds taken in the affidavits are false and baseless.
On the other hand, learned AGA also opposed the prayer.
In this matter as evident from the record, offence is said to have been committed by the applicants while opposite party no. 2 was returning from the civil court after pursuing the case. What facts have been mentioned in the complaint find support from the statement under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. As far as interestedness of witnesses examined on the complaint is concerned, opposite party no. 2 was returning from the civil court alongwith his son on his motorcycle. Thus, person accompanying the complainant will be best witness. Apart to this, submission raised on behalf of applicants could only be scrutinized after the evidence during trial.
So far as initiation of several criminal and civil cases against the applicants by the opposite party no. 2 or her husband is concerned, number of civil and criminal cases have also been started by the applicants as is clear from the affidavit annexed with the application itself. Mere recording of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on the day of filing of complaint itself, summoning order cannot be quashed. Perusal of the record also shows that after recording of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., several dates were fixed for recording of statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and hearing the complainant. If officers or officials of District courts were extending undue favour to opposite party no. 2, same can be enquired by the District Judge on the complaint made by applicants. Summoning order cannot be quashed on this ground.
Applicants' case also does not come under any of the category of Bhajan Lal (Supra) case as both side have initiated civil and criminal proceeding against each other.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with 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 applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.
Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019//Sanjeet
