Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Chandra Agrawal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 September, 2019
Author: Vipin Sinha
Bench: Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 51 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15104 of 2017 Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Agrawal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Dwivedi,Sudhanshu Singh Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Ghanshyam Das Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.
The contention of the counsel for the complaint is to the effect that even though vide order dated 15.05.2017, passed by another Bench of this Court, the matter was referred to the mediation centre of this Court, however, as per the report of the mediation centre dated 15.09.2017, even though a number of dates were fixed i.e. 21.07.2017, 11.08.2017, 25.08.2017, 01.09.2017, 08.09.2017 and 15.09.2017, but even though the mediation has been complained, no agreement could be arises between the parties. Accordingly the Court has proceed to here the case on its merits.
The 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bareilly, in Protest Application No.36 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.371 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly and also quash the NBW dated 08.04.2017, issued in the aforesaid case, pending in the court of ACJM-II, Bareilly. I have perused the summoning order dated 02.03.2017 and also pursued the order dated 08.04.2017 passed on the protest petition. It is also apparent from the record that non-bailable warrant were issued against all the applicants.
I have perused the summoning order dated 02.03.2017 and also pursued the order dated 08.04.2017, passed on the protest application, by means of which the non-bailable warrant were issued against all the applicants. Perusal of record shows the court below while summoning the applicants vide order dated 02.03.2017 has recorded the following categorical finding :-
^^izi=ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd ifjoknh us vius ifjokn ,oa c;ku vUrxZr /kkjk 200 na0 iz0 la0 esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd foi{khx.k ds }kjk mlds firk Lo) Jh jkekSrkj xqIrk dk QthZ gLrk{kj cukdj ,d nf[ky jguuqek rS;kj fd;k x;k tcfd fnukad 31-01-12 ls 14-02-12 rd og Mk;fyfll gsrq vius iq= lkSjHk dqekj ds ikl xqMxkaWo esa Fks vkSj bl chp dbZ ckj mudk Mk;ysfdl dksYefc;k ,f'k;k vLirky xqMxkaWo esa gqbZA ifjoknh us cjsyh ls fnYyh tkus ,oa fnYyh ls cjsyh vkus rd dk ;k=k fVdV Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd ftl nkf[ky jguuqek dk mYys[k ifjoknh dj jgk gS] og ,d lkekU; lkns dkxt ij rS;kj fd;k x;k gS ftldk foi{khx.k dks dksbZ vf/kdkj izFken`"V;k mRiUu gksuk izrhr ugh gksrk gSA vxj ifjoknh }kjk vfHkdfFkr rF;ksa dks lgh Hkh ekuk tk, rks izFken`"V;k lkekU; izd`fr dh dwVjpuk gSA dwVjpuk fuf'pr rkSj ij U;k;ky; ds ckgj dh x;h gSA mDr ys[ki= esa bl ckr dk mYys[k gS fd fnukad 02-02-11 dks 15 yk[k :i;s] }kjk pSd izkIr fd;k ysfdu ys[ki= fnukad 13-02-12 dks vafdr fd;s tkus dk mYys[k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g nLrkost izFken`"V;k lUnsg ds nk;js esa izrhr gksrk gSA vr% foi{khx.k ds fo:} izFken`"V;k /kkjk 420] 465] 468] 471] Hk0na0la0 ds vijk/k dk dkfjr fd;k tkuk ifjyf{kr gksrk gS o bu vijk/kksa ds fopkj.k gsrq lk{; fo|eku gSA foi{khx.k dks bu /kkjkvksa esa ryc fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA** Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned summoning order dated 02.03.2017 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with the said case at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.
However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case, applicants appears and surrenders before the court below within two months from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of two months from today or till applicants surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants. However, in case, applicants does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.9.2019 VKG