Satya Narain @ Bantu vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard Sri Dhirendra Singh, Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. Vide earlier order of this Court dated 9.9.2010, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre as per the request made by Learned Counsel for the applicant and the Bench Secretary/Incharge, Mediation Centre has reported in his report dated 25.3.2011 that the mediation has failed between the parties. The said mediation report is on record.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case No. 124 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Karhal, Mainpuri, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mainpuri.

It has been averred in the present petition 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.

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 right of discharge under Sections 239, 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may 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, is hereby refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his bail prayer shall be considered 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 and in a recent decision in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. 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 applicant. However in case the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

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

Sri Dhirendra Singh, Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 shall inform the Learned Counsel for the applicants about the order passed today in writing, within 24 hours. The Registry of this Court is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court today to the concerned Court below forthwith.