Krishna Pal and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. On the request of Learned Counsel for the applicants another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 10.08.2011 had referred the matter to mediation centre. The Incharge mediation centre vide its report dated 11.12.2011 had reported that no agreement could be reached between the parties, copy of which report is on record.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 1650 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and also for quashing the proceedings of aforesaid case.

It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the applicants that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

It is next contended that the applicant No. 3, 4 and 5 are ladies, therefore, their bail application be considered, if possible on the same day by the court below.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, , State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge u/s 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order dated 05.04.2011 is refused.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are ladies, may be considered by the court below on the same day, if possible, and for remaining applicants, their prayer for bail shall 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.

The registry of this Court is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court today to the concerned Court below forthwith. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.