Allahabad High Court
Dalveer Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 January, 2020
Author: Ajit Singh
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2697 of 2020 Applicant :- Dalveer Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding of Case no. 7876 of 2019 (State Vs. Dalveer Singh and others), Case Crime No. 209 of 2018, under Sections 323, 352, 452, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., P.S. - Civil Lines, District-Etawah, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.
The contention of learned 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.
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 submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions 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 Sections 239, 245 or 227 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.
At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weigh the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has a right against summoning order to file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide his discharge application, if there is no evidence against him.
The prayer for quashing the proceeding of aforesaid case is refused.
In that view of the matter, the applicants are permitted to move discharge application through counsel before the trial court within one month from today and the trial court shall decide the same within a period of two months from the date of filing of application alongwith certified copy of this order. Applicants shall furnish personal bond as per Section 88 Cr.P.C before the Court below ensuring their presence before the Court for the purpose of consideration of discharge application. In case of failure to appear before the Court after execution of bond proceedings under Section 229-A I.P.C shall be initiated against him.
Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants.
With the aforesaid observations, this application isdisposed of.
Order Date :- 21.1.2020 LBY