Court No.28
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.398 of 2010
1- Salik Ram
2- Virendra Kumar
3- Mahendra Kumar
4- Mahesh Kumar
5- Smt. Meera Devi
All R/o Village Dashrathpur (Chaprasi Ka Purwa),
Police Station Kotwali Bikapur,
District Faizabad. ..........................Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ......................Opp. Parties
Hon'ble Alok K. Singh, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. who has put in appearance on behalf of
opposite party nos.1 and 2.
At this stage notice in respect of opposite party no.3 is dispensed with.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated
27.06.2009 in Miscellaneous Case No.3148 of 2009, under Sections 352, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Kotwali Bikapur, District 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 proceeding of complaint case.
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 summoning order or the
complaint.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate and
not so grave. The petitioner no.5 is a lady who is entitled to get the benefit of the relevant provisions
contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C. in respect of granting bail in favour of ladies. Moreover all the petitioners
being law abiding citizens intend 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 applicants appear before the court concerned and apply 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 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 applicants to appear through counsel and raise
their objection, if any, against the initiation of trial proceedings against them at the stage of framing of
charges. This relief is being granted up to the stage of framing of charges only provided the applicants after
securing bail (1) furnish an undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial court that their counsel will remain
present on their behalf and will represent them on each and every date, (2) they 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 their absence, (4) an undertaking will also be given to the effect that they 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 in
abeyance.
With these observations this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
01.02.2010
PAL/CMC NO. 398 of 2010