Allahabad High Court
Surendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 25 February, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6770 of 2019
Applicant :- Surendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
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 entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1068 of 2017 (Smt. Hardai Vs. Surendra and others) pending in the court of AC.J.M., Court No. 4, Bareilly, under section 451, 323, 504, 354A IPC, P.S. Bhamaura, District Bareilly as well as the summoning order dated 28.10.2017 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 4, Bareilly.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that on 12.3.2017 the applicant has lodged an NCR under section 323, 504 IPC against the husband and son of O.P. No. 2. In that case charge-sheet was submitted under section 308, 323, 504 IPC against husband and son of O.P. No. 2. In counter blast only to make pressure upon the applicant the O.P. No. 2 has moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 21.3.2017 showing the incident of 12.3.2017 at 5.00 P.M. The same was treated as complaint and on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicant has been summoned to face the trial. The O.P. No. 2 is a married lady. In fact, no such incident has taken place. There is no medical report on record to support the prosecution version. Kushal Dutt and Sher Singh have filed their affidavits in support of applicant before the trial court on 29.1.2019 in which they have stated that no such incident has taken place and the complaint has been filed only to make pressure for compromise. No offence is made out against the applicant. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that O.P. No. 2 in her complaint it has mentioned that on 12.3.2017 at about 5.00 p.m. the O.P. No. 2 was cooking food in her house. The applicant entered into the house of O.P. No. 2 and caught hold her and misbehaved with her. On hue and cry of O.P. No. 2 the applicant committed marpit with the son and husband of O.P. No. 2. The information was also given to the police at 100 number. The O.P. No. 2 in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. has also supported the complaint version. The husband and son of O.P. No. 2 have also supported the complaint version. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicant to face the trial under section 451, 323, 504, 354A IPC. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order and there is no ground to quash the proceeding of the aforementioned case.\
A perusal of the record shows that the O.P. No. 2 in her complaint has made allegation against the applicant to outrage her modesty. The O.P. No. 2 in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses in their statements recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. have supported the complaint version. In complaint it has been mentioned that at the time of alleged incident the applicant entered into the house of O.P. No. 2 and outrage her modesty. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicant to face the trial under section 451, 323, 504, 354A IPC. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. The learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The disputed defence of the accused can not be considered at this stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case as well as summoning order dated 28.10.2017, 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 disposal of the application for grant of 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 :- 25.2.2019
Masarrat
