Allahabad High Court
Shankar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84272
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4159 of 2024
Applicant :- Shankar And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.4798 of 2022 (Mahendri Vs. Shankar and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 of IPC, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad as well as summoning order dated 04.03.2023 passed in aforesaid complaint case.
3. It is submitted that present proceedings are initiated as a counterblast since the FIR was lodged against injured persons from the side of applicant no.2 Hemraj. Six persons have sustained injured from the side of applicants. Thereafter on the basis of complaint applicants summoned to face trial. The medical report does not corroborate the version of the complaint. Witnesses who are produced under Section 202 Cr.P.C. are not eye witnesses. The nominated eye witnesses are not produced during primary evidence. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 694 and Vineet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2017 LawSuit (SC) 313.
4. It is submitted that there is no evidence of involvement of applicant in the crime. No case is made out against the applicants. It is submitted that order impugned is perverse and suffers from manifesto error of law. Learned Magistrate without applying his mind summoned the accused for facing the trial.
5. Per-contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that in both the matters date of occurrence is same, therefore, it is a cross case. From the side of opposite party three persons have sustained injuries. It is further submitted that the cognizance order has been passed after considering the evidence available on record, therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the available record, the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings of aforesaid case, cognizance order dated 04.03.2023 is refused.
7. However, it is provided that in case the applicants apply for bail within a period of 30 days from today, their application for bail shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
8. For a period of 30 days or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Mohit
