- (1.) HEARD Sri Praveen Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) ON the request of learned counsel for the applicants, another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 01.02.2010 had referred the matter to mediation centre. The Incharge mediation centre vide its report dated 11.11.2010 had reported that mediation has failed, copy of which report is on record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated? 13.05.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, District Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 332 of 2008, (Smt. Uma @ Rani Versus Hari Singh and others) under Sections 498A, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad. It has been averred in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
(3.) THE prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant no. 3 namely Smt. Bhagwan Devi, shall be considered and disposed of on the same day, if possible by the Court below and for remaining applicants their prayer for bail shall 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 judgement 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 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 undertakes to inform learned counsel for the applicant about the order passed today in writing within 24 hours. The registry of this Court is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court today to the concerned Court below forthwith. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.;