Court No. - 54 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25758 of 2009 Petitioner :- Hamant Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- R.C. Yadav Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Manoj Yadava Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Sri Manoj
Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
In pursuance of the order dated 7.10.2009 applicant no. 1 and O.P. 2 are
present in the court. On a quarry made by the court O.P. No. 2 stated that
she was subjected to cruelty she does not want to enter into compromise
with her husband.
This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of
criminal case No. 270 of 2008 under sections 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC
and section ¾ D.P. Act, P.S. Nagara, District Ballia pending in the court of
learned A.C.J.M. Court No. 1, Ballia.
From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that in this case after
considering the complaint and statement recorded under section 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. which discloses the commission of the offence, learned
Magistrate has taken the congnizance and summoned the applicants to
face the trial, there is no illegality in the prosecution of the applicant.
Therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The interim order dated 7.10.2009 is hereby vacated.
However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear before the court
concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be
heard and disposed of in view of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State
of U.P. 2005 Cr.L.J. 755.
The Full Bench of this court has held in the aforementioned case:
1. Even if a cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR or complaint
the arrest of the accused is not a must, rather the police officer
should be guided by the the decision of the Supreme Court in
Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J. 1981, before
deciding whether to make an arrest or not.
2. The High Court should ordinarily not direct any Subordinate Court
to decide the bail application the same day, as that would be
interfering with the judicial discretion of the court hearing the bail
application. However, as stated above, when the bail application is
under section 437 Cr.P.C. ordinarily the Magistrate should himself
decide the bail application the same day, and if he decides in a
rare and exceptional case not to decide it on the same day, he
must record his reasons in writing. As regards the application
under section 439 Cr.P.C. it is in the discretion of the learned
Sessions Judge, considering the facts and circumstances whether
to decide the bail application the same day or not, and it is also in
his discretion to grant interim bail the same day subject to the final
decision on the bail application later.
The same has been approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. on 23.3.2009 in Criminal
Appeal No. 538 of 2009.
With this direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.2.2010
RPD