Allahabad High Court
Satvir And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5143 of 2021
Applicant :- Satvir And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Shiv Prakash, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 15.7.2020, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Hapur in Case No. 767 of 2020 (State Vs. Satvir and others), under sections 452, 324, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station- Dhaulana, District-Hapur, arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2019, whereby non bailable warrants have been issued against applicants.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that applicants had earlier approached this Court by filing an Application U/S 482 No. 406 of 2020 (Satavir and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), which was disposed of finally vide order dated 7.1.2020. For ready reference order dated 7.1.2020 is reproduced herein under:
"A Vakalatnama of Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav, Advocate has been filed today on behalf of the opposite party No.2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri R.P. Mishra, holding brief of Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including impugned charge sheet dated 23.09.2019 as well as summoning order dated 21.10.2019 in case crime no.256 of 2019 under Sections 452, 324, 323, 308, 504 and 506 IPC Police Station Dholana, District Hapur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1, Hapur.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and his three sons under Section 452, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant without collecting proper evidence on 23.09.2019 and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants. It has been next submitted that prima facie, no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At last he submitted that the applicants are ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. He sought some time to surrender before the court below.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submits that after perusal of the records, it cannot not be said that no offence is made out against the applicants and it is to be decided by the court concerned after adducing the evidence by the parties.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, then their bail applications of the applicants 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 judgment 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 thirty days from today or till the disposal of the bail applcation, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them .
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. "
On the aforesaid premise, it is contended by learned A.G.A. that applicants were under a legal obligation to appear before Court below within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of order dated 7.1.2020. However, applicants have failed to honour the order dated 7.1.2020.
Consequently, no illegality has been committed by Court below in issuing non bailable warrants against applicants. Inspite of the fact that a period of more than 8 months has rolled by, applicants have yet not appeared before Court below. As a result proceedings of above mentioned trial have remained held up. In view of aforesaid, applicants do not deserve any sympathy of this Ciourt and therefore, present application is liable to be rejected.
When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
In view of above, no case for interference is is made out. Application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.3.2021
Arshad
