Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Gore Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 15 June, 2010
Court No. - 5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19432 of 2010

Petitioner :- Gore Lal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- N.C.Tripathi
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate

Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Smt. Usha
Srivastava and Sri Jitendra Kumar Ojha, learned counsel, who have put in
appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing their Parcha today in the
Court, which is taken on record.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning
order dated 22.04.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, District Chitrakoot in Case No.1/XI of 2009, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 120-B, 352, 420, 427, 452, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station Pahadi, District Chitrakoot.

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.It is further contended
that the civil dispute has been dragged into criminal prosecution of the
applicants which is bad in law.

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 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be 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, it is directed that the applicants shall appear and surrender before
the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for
bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this
Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004
(57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 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 :- 15.6.2010

S.Ali


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.164 seconds.