Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 3 March, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1403 of 2020 Applicant :- Ram Gopal Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the summoning order dated 28.01.2020/ 10.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD)-I/ Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Case No.09 of 2020 (State Vs. Ram Gopal Yadav and others) arising out of Crime No.482 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Beekapur, District Faizabad and entire proceedings of Case No.09 of 2020.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence against the petitioner 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. At last he submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. They sought sometime to surrender before the court below.
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 petitioner. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 28.01.2020/ 10.02.2020 and the charge sheet submitted in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the petitioner, namely, Ram Gopal Yadav appears and surrenders before the court below within forty five days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the petitioner 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.; 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.; 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of forty five 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 petitioner. However, in case, the petitioner does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.3.2020 akverma