Court No.28 Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.330 of 2010 Fazlur Rahman S/o Sri Abdul Rahman, R/o Sadar Bazar, Police Station Cantt, District Faizabad ..........................Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and another ......................Opp. Parties Hon'ble Alok K. Singh, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. who has put in appearance on
behalf of opposite party no.1.
At this stage notice in respect of opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning
order dated 24.11.2009 and the order dated 28.05.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad
on the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.3375 of
2009, under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt, District Faizabad pending before the court of
Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad.
The allegations are factual in nature that cannot be adjudicated in the present application.
There does not appear to be any sufficient cogent ground for quashing of the entire proceedings of
As far as the summoning order is concerned, it is a well settled law that it need not be a
well reasoned and detailed order. The order impugned, however, is a well reasoned order. It has
been passed on the basis of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Its perusal shows
that it has been passed after due application of mind and therefore I do not find any substance for
either quashing the proceedings or the complaint.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the offence is triable by
Magistrate and not so grave. Moreover the petitioner being law abiding citizen intends to appear
before the court below to participate in the proceedings after seeking bail.
Without entering into the merits of the case in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it is directed that if the applicant appears before the court concerned and applies
for bail within one month from today, both the courts below shall dispose of the application
expeditiously, if possible, on same day in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in
the Case of Srimati Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 CBC page 705 and Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 2009 (1) JIC 677 & 2009 (2) Crimes 4
(SC). Thereafter, the trial court may permit the applicant to appear through counsel and raise his
objection, if any, against the initiation of trial proceedings against him at the stage of framing of
charges. This relief is being granted up to the stage of framing of charges only provided the
applicant after securing bail (1) furnishes an undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial court that
his counsel will remain present on his behalf and will represent him on each and every date, (2) he
will not raise any objection as to the actual presence of the person who is facing trial, (3) no
objection shall be raised that the evidence is being recorded in his absence, (4) an undertaking will
also be given to the effect that he will be present before the court whenever called upon to do so at
any stage. These directions are being accorded in the light of the observations made by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels
Limited reported in 2001 Criminal Law Journal page 4250.
Till the aforesaid period of one month, bailable/non-bailable warrant, if any, shall be kept
With these observations this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
PAL/CMC NO.330 of 2010