Court No. - 42 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33450 of 2009 Petitioner :- Rachna Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Heard counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer that the proceeding of case
crime no. 356 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 I.P.C. , P.S.
Sikandra Rau, District Hathras be quashed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence
against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been
instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed
out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.
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 applicant.
All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact,
which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. At
this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur versus State of Punjab,
AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426,
State of Bihar versus P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cr) 192, and lately Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works LTD. versus Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another (Para
10), 2005 SCC (Cr.)283. It is open for the applicant to move an application
claiming her discharge before the court concerned. In case such application is
moved, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of law expeditiously. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused.
At this stage, counsel for the applicant submits that in Criminal
Misc.Application No. 22968 of 2009, under section 482, Cr.P.C., Hari Singh
and others Vs. State and others, decided on 23.10.2009, arising out of the
same case crime number, this Court has directed that if the applicants No. 1 to
6 therein appear or surrender before the court concerned within 30 days and
make an application for bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously, if
possible on the same day. He further states that name of present applicant
Rachna was inadvertently left out from the array of parties in the aforesaid
Application No. 22968 of 2009 and prays that similar order may be passed in
the present case also on the ground of parity.
Considering the fact that applicant Rachna is a lady against whom charges
have not yet been framed, it is directed that if she appears or surrenders
before the court concerned within a period of four weeks and make an
application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of
expeditiously if possible on the same day, in accordance with law giving her
the benefit of section 437 , Cr.P.C. It is further directed that personal
attendance of the applicant be dispensed with till framing of charges. Her
appearance shall be noted through her counsel. She shall appear on the date of
framing of the charges.
However, it will be open to the court below inquiring into or trying the case
may if it sees reason so to do, at any stage of the proceedings, to direct the
personal attendance of the applicant, if necessary and enforce such attendance
in the manner as provided under the law.
With the above observations, the application stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.1.2010
SNT/