Allahabad High Court
Ramshankar @ Rajol Mishra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 October, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35090 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramshankar @ Rajol Mishra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 28 of 2018 under Sections 395, 436, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Rasoolabad, District- Kanpur Dehat, the summoning order dated 25.7.2018 and the order dated 29.8.2019 rejecting the discharge application, pending in the court of Special Judge (DAA), Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat). Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that discharge application moved on behalf of applicants was rejected illegally on insufficient ground. Applicant no.1 being village Pradhan of the concerned village moved a complaint against opposite party no.2 for eviction from gaon sabha land and on the basis of said complaint he was evicted. Thereafter, present complaint was filed on the basis of false facts. Since entire proceeding of eviction was carried out by the Revenue Authorities, offences levelled against the applicants are not attracted. Court concerned did not apply judicial mind while passing the impugned order.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer.
It appears that the applicants had earlier approached this Court through application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.38310 of 2018 in which a direction was given to the applicants to move discharge application under Section 239 or 227/228/245 Cr.P.C. and the Court below was directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. In compliance of the said directions, concerned Magistrate heard the applicants and passed the aforesaid order rejecting the discharge application. Against the said order, present application has been filed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case 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 rejecting the discharge application. There is no illegality or infirmity in the said order. The concerned Magistrate while passing the impugned order has considered the entire evidence available on record. Further, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the applicants before this Court may be raised before the court concerned at appropriate stage. Hence, the prayer made in the application is refused.
However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.10.2019/safi