Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35571 of 2022
Applicant :- Raj Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagina, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2022 as well as the order dated 8.6.2022 passed by learned cout of ACJM, Nagina Bijnor in Complaint Case No. 197 of 2022, under Sections 406, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Dhampur, Distric Bijnor as well as entire proceedings of said Criminal complaint Case
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal proceeding has been launched against the applicants with malicious intention and just to harass him as no offence is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that both the courts below have not applied its judicial mind before summoning the applicants and thus have committed gross illegality in passing the impugned orders. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.
From the perusal of 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 submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Since, the applicants have been summoned by the Trial Court, they will have various opportunities before the Trial Court to agitate their grievance at appropriate stages.
The prayer for quashing the impugned orders as well as entire proceedings is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).
As such application has no force and is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.1.2023
RavindraKSingh
