The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of summoning order and prosecution proceedings, holding the matter for trial court. However, allowed surrender within four weeks seeking bail relief.
Application dismissed; applicants allowed to surrender for bail consideration within four weeks.
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. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1565 of 2020
Applicant :- Shanu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt 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 summoning order dated 05.12.2019, passed by learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) / 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 82 of 2019 (Haseen Khan Vs. Shanu and others), under Sections 394, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that it is a false accusation under abuse of process of law. It was said that some cheque was issued by Shanu. It was dishonoured and a complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed, which annoyed other accused persons and they gave above assault and thereby committed robbery, which is clearly against the fact. It was a false case, wherein impugned summoning order has been passed. Hence, this application with above prayer.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application.
From the very perusal of summoning order dated 05.12.2019 as well as contention of complaint, it is apparent that it was mentioned that Shanu Khan had issued a cheque towards dues against him and it was dishonoured. Thereafter, a complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act No. 657 of 2019; Haseen Khan Afridi Vs. Shanu Khan was filed, wherein Shanu Khan was summoned on 05.04.2019. This furiated Shanu Khan and his family members and on 19.05.2019 at about 7.30 PM, while complainant was on his way to his home and thereby reached near Masaini Crossing by a motorcycle being driven by Gulzar and ridden by complainant, Shanu, Dilshad and Siraz intercepted above motorcycle, they all did abuse, assault and thereupon they snatched Rs.6500/- from complainant. This occurrence was witnessed by persons present on above spot.
Accused persons ran towards Central Jail Crossing. This contention is fully reiterated in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. with further corroboration by statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. At the stage of passing of summoning order, under Section 204 Cr.P.C., Magistrate need not to make meticulous analysis of evidence. Rather a prima facie case by application of judicial mind is to be seen and in present case it was very well there.
This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. need not to embark upon factual matrix because the same is within domain of trial court. Accordingly, 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.
Order Date :- 17.1.2020 NS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order and proceedings should be allowed on grounds of false accusation.
Whether to provide an opportunity for the applicants to appear before the trial court for bail consideration to ensure justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shanu And 2 Others
State of U.P. and Another
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
