RESERVED
COURT No. 53
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 19355 OF 2008
Vinay Kumar and others Applicants
Vs.
State of U.P. and another Opp. Parties
Hon. R.A. Singh, J.
I have heard Shri Mahipal singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A.
for O.P. NO.1 and perused the record. None has appeared for O.P. NO.2, Km. Amarjeet
Kaur despite sufficient service of notice.
This application has been moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash
the summoning order dated 7.6.2008 passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut in complaint case no. 286/9 of 2008, Km. Amarjeet Vs. Vinay Kumar and others
under section 452,323,504, 506 I.P.C.
It appears from the record that an application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was
moved by Smt. Jasbeer Kaur, applicant no.2 against Avtar Singh, Balvindar Singh alias
Ladi and Narendra Kumar alias Nikkoo with this allegation that on 7.1.2008 the
inhabitants of her Mohalla informed her on telephone that the lock put on her room was
found broken, at which she immediately rushed to her house situated in Mohalla
Sarvoday Nagar, Meerut and found the lock of her room broken and luggage in her room
in disorder as well as her some luggage were found missing, at which she inquired about
the same from above persons who threatened to kill her. The complainant Smt. Jasbeer
Kaur suspected that her belongings were stolen by the above persons. The complainant
then filed a written report about the occurrence at police station, Civil Line, Meerut., but no
action was taken thereon. The said application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was registered as
complaint case and the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the
statements of witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
Another complaint was lodged by O.P.No.2, Km. Amarjeet Kaur against Vinay
Kumar, Smt. Jasbeer Kaur, Ram Sahai and Kuldeep Singh under section 452,
323,504,506 I.P.C. in the court of Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Meerut with this
allegation that on 6.1.2008 she alongwith her family members was present in her house
and in the morning of 7.1.2008 at about 7.00 a.m. she found the lock put on the room of
Smt. Jasbeer Kaur broken, in respect of which Smt. Jasbeer Kaur was informed and then
Smt. Jasbeer Kaur alongwith Vinay Kumar, Kuldeep Singh and Ram Sahai arrived at her
room and levelled false allegations against her and her parents and thereafter above
persons entered into her house, belaboured her and her parents, abused and threaten to
kill them.
The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Ist), Meerut took cognizance in
the complaint case no. 286/08, Km. Amarjeet Kaur Vs. Vinay Kumar and others and
summoned the applicants to face trial under section 452,323,504 and 506 I.P.C. vide
his order order dated 7.6.2008, aggrieved by which these applicants moved this
application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the applicants challenging the above order dated 7.6.2008
has contended that the court below did not apply his mind and passed illegal and
arbitrary order because both parties are close relatives and civil suit regarding property
of late Harmendar Singh is still pending between them. It has also been submitted that
O.P. NO.2, Km. Amarjeet Kaur has filed said complaint case as a counter blast of the
criminal case lodged by Smt. Jasbeer Kaur real Mausi of O.P. No.2, while O.P. NO.2
stated in her complaint that the applicant informed her about the lock being broken. The
applicant no.4, kuldeep singh had no concern with the dispute of the parties and he being
Jeth of Smt. Jasbeer Kaur was also dragged in this criminal case.
On perusal of record, it has been found that offences under section 452,
323,504,506 I.P.C. are primafacie made out against the applicants and the learned court
below on the basis of statements recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has
summoned the applicants to face the trial under above sections. Thus, no illegality or
irregularity is found in the impugned order passed by the Court below. There is no
sufficient ground to quash the summoning order dated 7.6.2008.
Consequently, this application moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is
dismissed. Since date, time and place of occurrence are one and the same in both the
cases, hence both the cases may be tried by the same Court simultaneously. In case the
applicants appear before the court below within a period of ten days from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order, the court below shall consider the application
for bail expeditiously, preferably on the date day.
Dated: 22.1.2010
R