Allahabad High Court
Suneel Kumar And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26394 of 2019
Applicant :- Suneel Kumar And Anr
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Mathur,Sanjay Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 3033 of 2018 under Sections 365, 342, 376 IPC, Police Station Manjhanpur, District - Kaushambi pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi as well as summoning order dated 18.9.2018 passed by the court concerned. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the memo of application during course of the day.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that for the same set of facts, an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the victim herself, which was rejected on merit. Thereafter, on the basis of same set of facts, opposite party no.2 moved a separate complaint, which was barred under law. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the order passed on the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and argued that offence under section 376 IPC is not made out in this matter. All the offences levelled against the applicants are based on false facts. Opposite party no.2 is harassing the applicants by launching such type of malicious prosecution. It is further submitted that without application of judicial mind, summoning order has been passed in the matter, which is illegal. Once the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. had been rejected, complaint under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought not to have been entertained.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
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 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 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 :- 9.7.2019
ss
