Smt. Reshma Bano vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case No. 409 of 2011, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.p.C., pending before learned Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Etawah and also to quash the summoning order dated 05.10.2011 issued in the aforesaid case.

It is contended by Learned Counsel for the applicant that the name of the husband and son of the applicant has been wrongly mentioned and it is contended that the said persons are neither husband nor son of the applicant which itself shows that the opposite party no.2 has falsely implicated the applicant. It is next contended that no offence against the applicant 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 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 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 applicant has 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 she is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, her 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against her. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.