Court refused quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as no offence is clearly not made out. However, directed trial court to consider bail applications on the same day and restrained coercive action for 30 days pending regular disposal.
Prayer for quashing refused; bail to be heard on same day; no coercive action for 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11759 of 2018
Applicant :- Sujan Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2017 (Satendra and another v. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 28.10.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District - Mathura in Criminal Complaint Case No. 161/9 of 2016 (Leela Singh v. Satendra Singh and another) under Section 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station - Chhata, District - Mathura as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District - Mathura.
Relying on the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram and Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 77 and Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar and Another reported in (2010) 10 SCC 673 , learned counsel for the applicants contended that this complaint has been filed as a counterblast of the FIR lodged by the applicant against opposite party no. 2 with false allegation. No offence, whatsoever, is made out against the applicant. Moreover, application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been presented with an inordinate and unexplained delay.
Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order by the trial court.
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 applicants and complaint has been filed with a mala fide intention and false allegation.
All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 22.03.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. Police has submitted charge sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court / court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason, it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
If applicants claim discharge, learned Magistrate shall pass order on merit without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.
With the above directions, the instant application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 10.4.2018 I. Batabyal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present complaint is a counterblast filed with mala fide intention allowing quashing.
Whether disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated and bail allowed at this stage.
Whether coercive action against applicants can be restrained temporarily.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram and AnotherReferred¶7
Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram and Another (2008) 8 SCC 77 · Who else cites this
Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar and AnotherReferred¶7
Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar and Another (2010) 10 SCC 673 · Who else cites this
Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. StateDistinguished¶13
Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sujan Singh And Another
State Of U.P. And Another
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
