Court No. - 5 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19478 of 2010 Petitioner :- Maneesha Alias Kavita And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- P.S.Pundir 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 proceedings
of Case No. 6407 of 2008 under Section 494 I.P.C., Police Station Janakpuri,
District Saharanpur, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ist, District Saharanpur as well as for quashing the summoning
order dated 29.01.2009 issued in the aforesaid case against the applicants.
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 criminal prosecution of the applicants has been lodged after months of
the alleged incident. It is next contended that the applicants no.1 and 6 are
ladies therefore, their bail application be considered on the same day, if
possible by the Court below.
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 proceeding as well as 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, then the bail
application of the applicants no. 1 and 6 who are ladies, shall be considered
on the same day, if possible by the court below and for remaining applicants
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