AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 714 wordsRajesh Dayal Khare, J.—List revised. None appears to press the application on behalf of the applicants. Learned A.G.A. is present for the State respondent.
This Court vide its order dated 14.9.2009 had issued notice to the opposite party No. 2 and learned Counsel for the applicant was directed to serve notice to the opposite party No. 2 through RPAD within ten days and interim order was passed. Thereafter the matter was again listed on 30th August, 2010 on which date nobody appeared for the applicant. After perusal of the office report dated 17.11.2009, the Court granted ten days'' further to the learned Counsel for the applicants for taking steps for service of notice upon opposite party No. 2, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.9.2009.
The matter was again listed on 13.9.2010 on which date a prayer was made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and three days'' time was granted for taking steps for service of notice upon opposite party No. 2.
As per the office report dated 25.9.2010, learned Counsel for the applicant has not yet been taken any steps of service of notice on opposite party No. 2 pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 14.09.2009.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3097/2009 (arising out of crime No. 182 of 2009), under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
It has been averred in the present application that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.
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 applicant. 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 v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Anr. (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got 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 he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing of proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from the date of communication of this order by the concerned court below and apply for bail, then the bail prayer of applicant No. 5 shall 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 Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as Judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, after hearing the Public Prosecutor. The concerned Magistrate is directed to send notice to the applicants immediately after receipt of communication from this Court.
For a period of 45 days from the date of communication of this order 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. Interim order dated 14.9.2009 is hereby quashed.
The Registry of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned, forthwith.
