HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 47954 of 2019
Applicant :- Vijay
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicant Vijay, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 18.11.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 351 of 2018, (Smt. yashoda Vs. Vijay and othes), under Section- 354 I.P.C., Police Station- Chhat, District- Mathura, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there had been a money advance to complainant and with a view to refuse the same for paid back, this false accusation was made, under misuse of process of law. Whereas, a challan under Section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. was there, regarding a dispute owing to a water channel, for which this accusation was got lodged. In police report, no such accusation was substantiated. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.
Complaint is with this contention that on 5.3.2018, at about 12 in the night, while complainant was all alone in her home and was at sleep, her neighbour Vijay, did criminal trespass and outraged her modesty. Upon her rescue call, her husband, who was at sleep in the next room, rushed on spot, Vijay was caught hold and upon his rescue call, his brothers Mahadev and Deen Dayal and many others came there. They all became abusive, wherein, Vijay was taken back. Matter was reported at Dial 100. Police had rushed on spot. Subsequently, this complaint was filed with above narration. In statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as of complainant and her two witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The same reiteration is there. Hence, at the stage passing of summoning under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., a prima facie, case for above offence was made out. Regarding occurrence, for which some primitive action has been taken, it is to be mentioned that the same may be a motive for this occurrence or a cause of this prosecution too, but, either ways it is to been seen by trial court during trial.
This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make analytical analysis of evidence and fact of the case, as the same is the question before trial court.Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within thirty (30) days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 thirty (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 stands disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 7.1.2020