Court rejected warrantless Section 482 petition. Ruled that after charge sheet and bailable warrant, applicants should seek regular bail. Vested 30-day reprieve before taking coercive action.
Thirty days' reprieve before taking coercive measures; mandated subsequent bail proceedings.
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. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 177 of 2020
Applicant :- Pawan Agarwal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Sati Shanker Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been given by the applicants Pawan Agarwal and Rajendra Agarwal with the request to quash the charge sheet dated 11.9.2019 as well as the cognisance and summoning order dated 5.10.2019 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mathura and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7125/IX/2019, State versus Pawan Agarwal and another, in Case Crime No. 527 of 2019, under Sections 323, 325, 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the whole case was initiated against the applicants on the basis of a concocted story and false F.I.R. which was lodged after 7 days delay. Submission of learned counsel is also that in the same F.I.R. two incidents were alleged and on the basis of that F.I.R. the police investigated and submitted the charge sheet against the applicants. Further submission is that there is no explanation of delay and just to increase the gravity of the offence allegation regarding the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. was added. The applicants are law abiding citizens and just to harass them and to obtain illegal gain the whole case has been framed by opposite party no.2.
From perusal of the papers attached with this application it appears that the F.I.R. was lodged by one Kush Agarwal naming two accused persons who are the applicants and two other persons. The medical report of the injured persons has also been attached with this application which shows that on medical examination of Kush Agarwal as many as 8 injuries were found on his body. X-ray was also done and fracture of 6th rib on left side chest was also found. The Investigating Officer duly investigated the case on the basis of F.I.R., recorded the statement of injured and victim and after finding the sufficient evidence filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences against the applicant. On charge sheet the learned Trial Court took cognizance and the order sheet shows that bailable warrant has
been issued against the applicants.
Once, the charge sheet has been filed after due investigation by the police and cognizance has been taken by the Court having jurisdiction, the possibility of misusing the court's process can not be speculated. When bailable warrant has been issued it should have been better for the applicant to go and appear before the Court below and seek bail from the Court below. No case is made out for quashing the charge sheet or the entire proceedings of the case and the application is liable to be dismissed.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if within 30 days from today the applicants appear before the learned Court below and seek bail, their bail application should be heard and disposed of expeditiously, preferably on the same day keeping in view the age of applicant no.2. For a period of 30 days no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants but in no case this time shall be extended.
Order Date :- 6.1.2020 CPP/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet and proceedings under sections 323, 325, 354, 504 and 506 IPC should be quashed.
Whether any coercive measures can be taken against the applicants.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pawan Agarwal
Rajendra Agarwal
State of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
