High CourtsSingle Bench

Pooran Lal and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 14 September 2010 · Citation: (2010) 09 AHC CK 0479

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Dayal Khare, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 227, 228, 239, 482 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 323, 504, 506
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Application U/S 482 No. 27757 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

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

5 paragraphs · 465 words

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 370 of 2010, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dataganj, District Badaun, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, District Badaun as well as for quashing of the summoning order dated 31.03.2010 issued in the aforesaid case against the applicants.

3.

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is 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 further contended that the opposite party No. 2 is the real brother of the applicants who have been falsely implicated in the present case.

4.

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 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 they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as summoning order is refused.

5.

However, since the charged sections are bailable, it is directed that the applicants shall appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, if possible on the same day by the Court below. 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.

6.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.