Allahabad High Court
Mohit Alias Jeetu And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106048
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9708 of 2024
Applicant :- Mohit Alias Jeetu And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shivakant
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Purti Agarwal
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1.Heard Sri Shivakant, learned cousnel for applicants and Sri Mithilesh Kumar learned A.G.A.
2. By means of this application, applicants have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 1.11.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3467/2019 (Pappu Vs. Vinay @ Shobhit and others) under section 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Chandpur, District-Fatehpur pending in the Court of Additional Civii Jude (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Court No.5 Fatehpur.
3.Applicants before this Court are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1.11.2022 passed in a Complaint Case, under section 204 Cr.P.C., whereby applicants have been summoned under aforesaid offence.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that in regard to occurrence which took place on 3.1.2019, wherein persons from applicants side have received injuries also and they have filed a prompt F.I.R. against complainant side, wherein after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as a counterblast of aforesaid lodgement of F.I.R., present criminal proceedings were initiated, which suffers with malice and malafide. He further submits that in statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., injury report has not been placed on record as well offence under Section 427 I.P.C. is not made out. He further submits that women of applicants side have also been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. In order to appreciate above referred arguments, I have carefully perused reasons assigned by learned Trial Court in the impugned order and same is reproduced hereinafter:
"??????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?????, ????????, ????? ???? ????, ????????, ???? ? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? 200 ???? ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??, ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???
??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?????, ????????, ????? ???? ????, ????????, ???? ? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????, ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????????? ??? ??????- ???? ???? 200 ??? 202 ???? ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ?????, ????????, ????? ???? ????, ????????, ???? ? ????? ???? 323, 504, 506, 427 ????????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?????, ????????, ????? ???? ????, ????????, ???? ? ????? ?? ???? 323, 504, 506, 427 ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???"
7. As referred above, learned Trial Court has considered statements and material before him and has passed a reasoned order that some of the offences has not been made out. So far as other allegations are concerned, it is mentioned in the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. that applicants side entered inside house of complainant side and assaulted them. I don't find that the impugned order is absolutely unreasoned and there are no sufficient ground to proceed against the applicant.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for applicants submits that an opportunity be granted to applicants to approach before learned Trial Court to file an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. as well as to raise their arguments under sub-section 2 of Section 244 Cr.P.C., though there is a prayer that applicants be protected from not appearing before learned Trial Court and to file above referred application, through an Advocate, however, Court is not inclined to accept it.
9. Therefore, while rejecting the prayers made in this application, it is observed that in case applicants appear before learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today and file bail application, same shall be considered in accordance with law taking note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021) 10 SCC 773, expeditiously subject to cause list and subsequently if any application is filed under the above referred provision, same shall be decided considering the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2023 INSC 1026.
10.With the aforesaid observation/direction, this application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
SB
