Court No. - 21 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17203 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Madhuri Devi And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- H.N.Singh,B.Narayan Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
ORDER ON MODIFICATION/RECALL APPLICATION
This is an application for modification/recall of the order dated
26.05.2010 passed by this Court.
The order dated 26.05.2010 has been perused. Said order proceeds
on the assumption that the applicants had been summoned under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., as there had been material showing prima facie
complicity of the applicants in the said criminal case.
This fact has been stated that the applicants are already on bail, as
such there was no requirement of the order being passed for making
application for bail. The applicants appear to be right. Once the
applicants had applied for bail and they were released on bail, then
such an order was not imperative for this Court to be passed.
Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the applicants had
already been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 03.03.2009
and against the order for framing of charges, they had approached this
Court. The applicants have been summoned exercising authority of
Section 319 Cr.P.C., as prima facie material was there. Once material
was already there to summon the applicants and thereafter on the
basis of the material available, charges have been framed, then there
was no occasion for this Court to exercise and invoke its inherent
authority to quash the proceedings. It has also been contended that
against the order framing charge against the father-in-law, mother-in-
law and two dewars (husband’s younger brothers) of the deceased
under Sections 306, 498A and 34 I.P.C., Criminal Revision had been
preferred; same had been allowed and the matter had been remitted
back. It has also been stated that against the said order Special Leave
Petition filed before the Apex Court has been dismissed. Copies of
orders passed by Revisional Court nor that of Apex Court has been
appended and even respective dates have not been mentioned in the
modification application, as to when order was passed by revisional
court and when S.L.P. was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court.
In such a situation and in such a background, it may be true that in the
order dated 26.05.2010 reference was there, but in effect once there
was material to frame charges, there was no occasion for this Court to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the modification
application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.7.2010
SRY