HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 28216 of 2019
Applicant :- Ziyauddin And 7 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of O.P. No.2 is taken on record.
Heard Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for O.P. No.2.
Present application under Section 482, SectionCr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No.361 of 2008, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate) Court No.12, Fatehpur as well as order dated 5.7.2019, whereby discharge application filed by the accused-applicants was rejected in an offence under Sections 498A, Section323, Section506, Section379, Section452, SectionIPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Lalauli, District Fatehpur.
The record reflects that the complaint has been filed by O.P. No.2 bearing complaint No.361 of 2008 against the applicants under Sections 498A, Section323, Section506, Section379, Section452, SectionIPC and 3/4 D.P. Act in which the summoning order was passed after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200, SectionCr.P.C. and his witnesses under Section 202, SectionCr.P.C. Said order was challenged in Application U/S 482 No.14767 of 2008 in which interim order was granted by this Court on 19.6.2008 staying the further proceedings of the complaint case. Ultimately the said application was finally disposed of granting protection to the applicants to appear before the court to obtain bail order. Relevant portion of the order dated 16.11.2018 is quoted as under:-
“At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this application may be disposed of with certain protection to the applicants to appear before the Court to obtain the bail for which Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has no objection.
Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order as well as the other materials brought on record. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is disposed of with the following direction:
(i) the applicants shall move an application to cancel the non-bailable warrant issued against her before the court below within three weeks from today along with the certified copy of this order;
(ii) in that case the concerned court will exercise its discretion to pass appropriate order thereon to either recall the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants or to direct the applicants to file fresh bail bonds within a further period of one week, thereafter;
(iii) for a period of six weeks from today, non-bailable warrants issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance.
In the event of failure, on part of the applicants to act within time as directed above, the Court below may adopt all coercive measures to ensure her appearance.”
The order dated 16.11.2018 has not been complied with and only an application for discharge was filed, which was rejected vide order dated 5.7.2019 as the applicants failed to appear before the magistrate concerned pursuant to order dated 16.11.2018.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned and no ground for quashing the proceeding in question is made out. Since the applicants have not complied with the earlier order passed by this court on 16.11.2018 passed in Application U/S 482 No.14767 of 2008, they are not entitled for any relief.
The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2019