HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 4978 of 2020
Applicant :- Munna Lal Verma And 5 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 15.1.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Criminal Case. No. 1841 of 2018 (State Vs. Munna Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2018 under section 406 IPC P.S. Sasni Gate, District Aligarh pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants the marriage of Kanchan Verma daughter of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with Hemant son of opposite party no. 2 on 28.4.2017. The opposite party no. 2 had lodged an FIR under section 406 IPC against the applicants. The applicants have filed An Application U/S 482 No. 31007 of 2018 for quashing the charge sheet in which vide order dated 11.10.2018 the further proceeding of the case has been stayed and thereafter due to none appearance of the applicants, the application U/S 482 No. 31007 of 2018 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.9.2019 by another bench of this Court. The applicants had moved a restoration application/recall application on 15.10.2019 which is still pending and due to dismissal of application of the applicants U/S 482 No. 31007 of 2018 the learned court below has issued N.B.W. against the applicants vide order dated 15.1.2020. It has further been submitted that the applicants have not committed the alleged offence. False FIR has been lodged against the applicants due to matrimonial dispute in between the daughter of the applicant no. 1 and the son of opposite party no.2. It has further been submitted that learned Magistrate have to wait the final decision in restoration application moved before this Court and the order of N.B.W is not in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A argued that the application of the applicants U/S 482 No. 31007 of 2018 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.9.2019 and stay order was vacated, since the application of the applicants U/S 482 No. 31007 of 2018 has been dismissed by this Court in none appearance of the applicants then the second application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It has further been submitted that the interim order was also vacated by the court concerned due to which N.B.W was issued against the applicants by the court below. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. It has further been submitted that merely on the basis of pendency of the restoration application/recall application, the proceeding of the trial cannot be stayed.
A perusal of the record shows that application of the applicants U/S 482 No. 31007 of 2018 has been dismissed for want of prosecution by another bench of this Court vide order dated 26.9.2019 and the stay order was also vacated and merely on the basis of pendency of restoration application/ recall application the proceeding of trial cannot be stayed. The application of the applicants U/S 482 No. 31007 of 2018 has been dismissed for want of prosecution and stay order was also vacated. In this circumstances it cannot be said that the order of N.B.W. issued by the court below dated 15.1.2020 is against law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the N.B.W. order dated 15.1.2020 of the aforementioned case therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
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 applicants 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 judgment 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.2.2020/A.