Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194986
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32252 of 2023
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Sukhendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District- Hathras whereby applicant have been summoned to face the trial in Criminal Compliant Case No. 2094 of 2022 (Pinki vs. Manoj & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Hathras Gate, District- Hathras and the entire proceedings of Criminal Compliant Case No. 2094 of 2022 (Pinki vs. Manoj & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Hathras Gate, District- Hathras, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District- Hathras.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that allegations made in the complaint are not supported by any evidence. He next submits that complaint was lodged against seven persons but learned Magistrate on the same set of allegations has not taken cognizance against four persons and issued summons against the applicants. He next submits that material contradiction regarding date of incident as in the complaint it has been stated that incident occurred on 13.06.2021 whereas witnesses in statements recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has stated that incident occurred on 30.06.2021 and 21.06.2021. He further submits that during mediation complainant has refused to go with the applicant and proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is pending. He further submits that summoning order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is without application of judicial mind, which is liable to be set-aside.
4. Per contra, learned AGA opposes the submissions made by counsel for the applicants and submits that submissions raised by counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined at this stage.
5. Considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants and perused the entire records. From perusal of record, it is apparent that victim in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has supported the averments made in the complaint and, prima facie, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out under the alleged sections against the applicants. Submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of fact and sitting under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction, this Court has no power to examine the facts.
6. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters 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, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
7. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail applications shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.10.2023
Aditya
