Allahabad High Court
Smt. Urmila Devi vs State Of Up And Another on 19 August, 2019
Author: Vipin Sinha
Bench: Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 51 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31051 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Urmila Devi Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Bhushan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Bharat Bhushan Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 02.01.2019, passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etawah, in Criminal Revision No. 181 of 2017(Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 29.08.2017, passed by the CJM, Etawah, in Complaint Case NO. 2105 of 2016(Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. Japan Singh @ Jaipal Singh).
The applicant being aggrieved against the order dated 29.08.2017, by means of which his complaint has been dismissed.
I have perused the said order, which shows that the complaint has been dismissed with the categorical findings to the following effect:-
^^ifjokn&i= ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd ifjokfnuh }kjk vius ifjokn&i= esa Hkwfe la[;k&374 jdok&1-4080 gs0 esa 1@3 Hkkx dk cSukek fnukad&13-01-2014 dks foi{kh tkiku flag ls djkus dk dFku fd;k gSA ifjokfnuh dh vksj ls nkf[ky mDr cSukek&13-01-2014 dh izfr ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mDr cSukesa esa dz; dh xbZ Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh&iwjc [ksr ekfud pUnz] if'pe [ksr teZu flag] mRrj ukyw ckngw [ksr jkeeksiky o nf{k.k [ksr jke dSyk'k of.kZr gSA ifjokfnuh dh vksj ls gh foi{kh tkiku flag }kjk esgjoku flag ds gd esa fd;s x;s cSukek fnukafdr&26-02-2013 dh izfr Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd foi{kh }kjk Hkwfe la[;k&374 jdck&1-4080 gs0 esa 1@3 Hkkx dk cSukek fnukad&26-02-2013 dks esgjoku flag ds i{k fd fd;k x;kA mDr cSukesa esa dz; dh xbZ Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh iwjc [ksr jkedSyk'k] if'pe [ksr lR;jke] mRrj [ksr nsosUnz dqekj o nf{kr [ksr losZ'k of.kZr gSA bl izdkj Li"V gS fd ifjokfnuh }kjk dz; dh xbZ Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh o esgoku flag }kjk dz; dh xbZ Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh fHkUu&fHkUu gSA vr% mijksDr cSukesa ds voyksdu ls izFke n`"V;k ;g ugh dgk tk ldrk fd foi{kh }kjk iwoZ esa fodzhr Hkwfe dk cSuke ifjokfnuh ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh }kjk Hkwfe la[;k&374 jdck&1-4080 gs0 esa 1@3 Hkkx dk cSukek fnukad&13-01-2014 dks ifjokfnuh ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gS rFkk mlh Hkwfe la[;k&374 jdck&1-4080 gs0 esa 1@3 Hkkx dk cSukek fnukad&26-02-2013 dks esgjoku flag ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gSA vr% i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kh; o ekSf[kd lk{; ds mijksDr fo'ys'k.k ls ifjokfnuh }kjk ifjokn&i= o c;kuksa esa fd;s x;s dFku ;qfDrghu izrhr gksrs gSa rFkk ifjokfnuh dk ifjokn /kkjk&302 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** Aggrieved against the said order the applicant were filed a Criminal revision, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2019. Again the court has given the categorical findings to the following effect:-
^^fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls gh foi{kh tkiku flag }kjk esgjoku flag ds gd esa fd;s x;s cSukek fnukad 26-02-2013 dh izfr Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd foi{kh }kjk Hkwfe la[;k&374 jdok 1-4080 gs0 esa 1@3 Hkkx dk cSukek fnukad 26-02-2013 dks esagjoku flag ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gSA mDr cSukesa esa dz; dh xbZ Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh iwjc [ksr jkedSyk'k] if'pe [ksr lR;jke] mRrj [ksr nsosUnz dqekj o nf{kr [ksr losZ'k of.kZr gSA bl izdkj izdV gksrk gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk dz; dh xbZ Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh o esgjoku flag }kjk dz; dh xbZ Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh fHkUu&fHkUu gSA vr% mijksDr cSukeksa ds voyksdu ls izFke n`"V;k ;g ugh dgk tk ldrk fd foi{kh }kjk iwoZ esa fodzr Hkwfe dk cSukek fuxjkuhdrkZ ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh }kjk Hkwfe la[;k&374 jdck&1-4080 gs0 esa 1@3 Hkkx dk cSukek fnukad&13-01-2014 dks fuxjkuhdrkZ ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gS rFkk mlh Hkwfe la[;k&374 jdok 1-4080 gs0 esa 1@3 Hkkx dk cSukek fnukad 26-02-2013 dks esagjoku flag ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gSA I have perused the said orders passed by the revisional court and finds that the said order is very elaborated and reasoned order.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record 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. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.
Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned. It is also made clear that in case the applicants does not surrender before the court concerned within 30 days from today, this order shall stand automatically vacated.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.8.2019/VKG