SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pawan Pal & Ors. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 16 July, 2019


?Court No. – 28

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 4977 of 2019

Applicant :- Pawan Pal Ors.

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pratap Yadav,Shiv Prakash Dwivedi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 22.05.2019 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.18, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.3173 of 2018 (Usha Pal alias Kamlesh Vs. Pawan Pal and others), under Sections 494, Section498A, Section323, Section506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners 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. At last he submitted that the petitioners are ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. They sought sometime to surrender before the court below.

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 petitioners. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 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. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 22.05.2019 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the petitioners 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 four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

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

Order Date :- 16.7.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation