HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 4168 of 2020
Applicant :- Sandeep And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 193 of 2017, Kiran Vs. Ravindra Baghel and others, arising out of Final Report No. 414 of 2016 in Case Crime No. 0624 of 2016, under Sections 376, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(12) SC/ST Act, P.S. Sikandra, District Agra, pending in court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra as well as consequential summoning order dated 24.10.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that previously a case was registered against Ravindra Baghel and others, wherein there was order of acquittal. Subsequently, with same accusation, this case was got registered, without disclosing first one and Investigating Officer in its report mentioned above circumstances and hiding of previously instituted case and acquittal therein, thereby final report was submitted. A protest petition was filed and it was treated as a complaint case, wherein statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and ultimately complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Against this order, a criminal revision was filed before court of Sessions Judge, wherein the order was set aside with a direction for rehearing and passing of appropriate order, thereafter, impugned summoning order has been passed, whereas it was under abuse of process of law. Hence, this application with above prayer.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application.
The entire submissions made by learned counsel for applicant, regarding sequence in the file concerned, is there on record and complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C., whereas learned revisional court held that specific accusation of outraging modesty by Sandeep on specific date was said since the beginning of first information report and statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. The accusation against father of Ravindra Baghel was of making abuse punishable under Section 504 I.P.C. Hence, applicant Sandeep has been summoned for offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. and Kailash Chand has been summoned for offence punishable under Section 504 I.P.C. i.e. evidence with regard to those offences are very well there on record. Now, veracity of same is to be seen by trial court and this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to embark upon factual matrix because it may prejudice a fair trial. Accordingly, impugned summoning order for offences, as above, with specific date of occurrence, is there. Hence, this application merits its dismissal. The application is dismissed as such.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks 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 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 applicants.
However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Further, applicants may move discharge application at appropriate stage before trial court, where it shall be legally disposed of without being influenced by this order.
Order Date :- 4.2.2020