Allahabad High Court High Court

Satendra And Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 8 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Satendra And Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 8 January, 2010
Court No. - 54

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34053 of 2009

Petitioner :- Satendra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- M.R. Gupta
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning
order dated 10.09.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
District Sonbhadra, in Complaint Case No. 357 of 2009, under Sections 323,
504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that 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.
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 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. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge
under Section 245 Cr.P.C.,through a proper application for the said purpose
and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application
before the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.
However, since all the charged Sections are bailable, it is directed that the
applicants shall appear before the court below within 30 days from today and
apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided if possible
on the same day by the Court below. For a period of 30 days from today or till
the disposal of the application for grant of bail 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 off.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010

S.Ali