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

Allahabad High Court
Uma Shankar & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 4 August, 2010
Court No. - 45

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2787 of 1994

Petitioner :- Uma Shankar & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- V.P. Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- A.G.A..

Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.

List revised none appears to press this application on behalf of applicants.

Learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of State.

Vide order dated 22.04.1994, another Bench of this Court had issued notice to
the opposite party no.2 and also stayed the further proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 581 of 1998 under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., (Pati Ram Vs. Uma
Shanker and others) pending before learned Vth Additional Munsif
Magistrate, Azamgarh.

Report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Azamgarh dated
06.08.1994 indicates that the notice has been served upon the opposite party
no.2 but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the Complaint
Case No. 581 of 1998 under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., (Pati Ram Vs. Uma
Shanker and others) pending before learned Vth Additional Munsif
Magistrate, Azamgarh.

It has been averred in the present application that no offence against the
applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a
malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.
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 or 245 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 proceedings is refused.
However, since all the charged Sections are bailable, it is directed that the
applicants shall appear before the court below within 30 days from today and
apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, if possible on the same day.
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.
Interim order dated 22.04.1994 is hereby vacated.

Learned A.G.A. is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court
today in writing within three days from today to the learned counsel for the

Let a copy of this order be supplied to learned A.G.A. for necessary

Order Date :- 4.8.2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.128 seconds.