Uttarakhand High Court
Baliram Alais Baldev And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 19 June, 2018
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 999 of 2018
Baliram @ Baldev & others ....Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Mr. B.N. Maulakhi & Mr. Shiv Pande, Advocates for the applicants.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General alongwith Mr. Dinesh Chauhan,
Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Dated: 19.06.2018
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicants for quashing impugned summoning order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora; entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 34 of 2016, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora; and order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2018, whereby the revision preferred by the applicants against the impugned summoning order dated 22.12.2017 has been dismissed.
3. In the year 2015, respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, District Almora. On 04.01.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora rejected the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the respondent no. 2. Against the aforesaid order, respondent no. 2 filed Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2016 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Almora, which was transferred to the 2 Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora and the same has been dismissed by the learned Additional sessions judge vide order dated 08.02.2016. Thereafter, on 24.02.2016, respondent no. 2 filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora against the applicants. Learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the respondent no. 2 and her husband under Section 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.05.2016, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicant no. 1 under Section 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. Other applicants were not summoned by the learned Magistrate. The said order was challenged by the respondent no. 2 before this Court by way of filing criminal misc. application, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.04.2017. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 filed Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Almora, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2017 and the same was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet District Almora. Vide judgment and order dated 27.09.2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora allowed the said revision and directed the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet to re-hear the respondent no. 2 after passing afresh order. Thereafter, learned Magistrate vide order dated 22.12.2017 summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 354 of I.P.C. Against the order dated 22.12.2017, applicants filed Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2018 before the learned Sessions Judge, Almora and the same was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District Almora. Thereafter, on 17.05.2018 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, dismissed the 3 Criminal revision preferred by the applicants and confirmed the impugned summoning order dated 22.12.2017.
4. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. In my view, this is not a fit case where process of law has been misused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that the High Court should interfere in rarest of the rare cases. This Court does not find that this case comes under that category. The Court has issued summoning order to the applicants. The applicants should appear before the Court concerned and should say whatever they want to say.
6. The criminal misc. application is dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants then prayed that the applicants will surrender before the Court concerned and will move the bail application and the Court concerned may be directed to decide their bail applications on the same day. In my view, every bail application should be considered and decided without any unreasonable delay; but, needless to say that it should be decided strictly in accordance with law. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the applicants, it is observed that in case applicants surrender and move bail applications, the same shall be decided by the concerned Court very very expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.
(V.K. Bist, J.) 19.06.2018 Navin