Abdul Rauf and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

R.K. Rastogi, J.—List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the applicant. Learned A.G.A. for opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 are present. This case was listed today peremptorily.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.1.2004, passed by the I Xth A.C.J.M., Ghaziabad in Case No. 5996 of 2003, Shabnam v. Abdul Rauf and Ors.(Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the application) and order dated 28.8.2004 (wrongly mentioned as dated 28.10.2004 in para 2 and prayer clause of the application) passed by the A.C.J.M., Court No. 7, Ghaziabad in Case No. 426 of 2004, Shabnam v. Abdul Rauf (Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of the application).

It may be mentioned that both these orders dated 19.1.2004 and 28.8.2004 have been passed in the same case. The above case was numbered as Criminal Case No. 5996 of 2003 when it was pending in the Court of I Xth A.C.J.M., Ghaziabad and after its transfer to the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 7, Ghaziabad it was numbered as Criminal Case No. 426 of 2004.

Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 submitted before me that aggrieved with the order dated 28.8.2004, whereby the applicants'' application for recall of the summoning order dated 19.1.2004 had been rejected, the applicants filed Criminal Revision No. 697 of 2004 before the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, and the Sessions Judge dismissed that revision on merits vide his judgment dated 20.12.2004. Aggrieved with that order the present applicants had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1560 of 2005 before this Court, and after hearing both the parties that writ petition was dismissed on merits by Hon''ble Ravindra Singh, J., vide his judgment dated 15.2.2005. He pointed out that after losing the revision and the writ petition on merits, the accused-applicants filed this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. challenging the summoning order dated 19.1.2004 and the order dated 28.8.2004, passed on the application for recall of the summoning order concealing this fact that they had already lost the revision and the writ. He submitted that it is a clear cut abuse of the process of the Court and the applicants had obtained interim order in this case concealing the fact that the revision and writ petition filed against the above orders had already been dismissed.

After perusal of the record, I am in agreement with the above contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite party and I am of the view that, taking into consideration the judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1560 of 2005, this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. The stay order stands discharged.