Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Pratap Yadav And 4 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 17 March, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8804 of 2020 Applicant :- Gaurav Pratap Yadav And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 07.01.2020 and entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 07/2019, Shiv Kumar Vs. Gaurav Pratap Yadav & other, under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. & Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Sant Kabir Nagar, with a further prayer to stay further proceeding in the aforesaid case.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the accused applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. No such occurrence has ever taken place. The impugned summoning order has been passed erroneously without there being any evidence on record, which needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing and argued that as per the contents of the F.I.R. cognizable offence is made out.
I have gone through the complaint as well as the summoning order, in which it is stated that the accused applicants are stated to have abused using caste indicative words and beaten up with lathi and threatened to kill the complainant side and caused injuries. The trial court has summoned the accused applicants after following the due procedure. It cannot be denied that cognizable offence is made out against the accused applicants.
The arguments which are made by the learned counsel for the applicant are related to factual aspect which cannot be seen at this stage in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 30 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.3.2020 VPS