Allahabad High Court
Sravan Kumar Gaur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 January, 2020
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47853 of 2019 Applicant :- Sravan Kumar Gaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Victor Henry,Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudarshan Singh Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that due to typographical error the word 'complaint' has been mentioned in the prayer in place of word 'charge-sheet'.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is allowed to make correction in the prayer during the course of the day.
Heard Sri R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1, Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C., Varanasi arising out of case crime no. 81 of 2019 and proceedings of S.T. No. 409 of 2019, under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi, whereby discharge application 9(kha) of the applicant has been rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The Investigating Officer without conducting fair investigation submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. The defence taken by the applicant in his discharge application has not been considered by the trial court while passing the impugned order dated 14.11.2019. The dispute between the applicant and opposite party no.2 was with regard to transaction of money since 2016, therefore, applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no.2 in the year 2019 to settle her personal score. It is further submitted that considering the defence of the applicant, no offence is made out against the applicant.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 refuting the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that earlier applicant has approached this Court by means of Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 29125 of 2019 against the charge-sheet dated 19.06.2019 and cognizance order dated 26.06.2019 taken by the A.C.J.M.,3rd, Varanasi, in which prayer for quashing the proceedings has been refused by this Court and the said case was finally disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2019 directing the applicant to appear before committal court within 15 days to get his case committed to the Court of Sessions so that the accused may move discharge application before it. For a period of 15 days from the date of order, further direction was that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. In the said order, it has been clarified that if accused does not appear before the committal court, the said court shall take coercive steps to procure his attendance. Referring the aforesaid order dated 30.07.2019, it is pointed out that applicant did not comply the order dated 30.07.2019 and straightway filed discharge application before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Varanasi without committal of the case. It is also submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 14.11.2019, as the discharge application of the applicant has been decided by the concerned court below in the light of settled proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. C.B.I. Criminal Appeal No. 2020 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6374 of 2010, Tarun Jeet Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and others Criminal Appeal No. 1246 of 2019 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1383 of 2018, Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra and others Criminal Appeal 1407 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1516 of 2010, Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others Criminal Appeal 1365 of 2014 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3051 of 2018, Palvinder Singh Vs. Balvinder Singh 2009 (2) JIC SC, Sandhi Brothers Vs. Sanjay Chaudhary 2008 (3) CCSC SC and State of Orisa Vs. Devendra Nath 2005 (1) JIC 289, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that now he does not want to press this application on merit. Since, the applicant is seriously ill, therefore, some protection may be granted to the applicant to appear before the trial court.
After advancing certain arguments at some length by the learned counsel for the applicant, when the Court put certain query to him, he gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned order dated 14.11.2019 against the applicant and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court below. The learned counsel for the applicant further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously in accordance with law.
In view of above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused.
Considering the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the concerned court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law keeping in view of the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437.
For the period of 30 days from today or till the date of appearance of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the above case.
With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.1.2020 AK Pandey