Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing the criminal proceeding in criminal case no. 1372 of 2011 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, I, Agra under sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 452 IPC IPC, P.S. Khanduli, District Agra.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants submitted that it is family dispute, Opposite party no. 2 is real nephew and is an advocate of applicant no. 1 and 3. On the basis of false allegation even earlier complaint was lodged after more than 3 months and one of the proceeding under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed after submission of charge sheet. Criminal Misc. Application no. 22495 of 2009 was filed in which the proceeding was stayed vide order dated 15.10.2009 Now again in the present case FIR was lodged in case crime no. 183 of 2010 which was challenged before this Court. No such incident took place on 24.2.2010. However, FIR was lodged on 12.6.2010. Applicant no. 3 has received injuries and was got admitted in hospital. Since proceeding is initiated on malafide intention, hence impugned order is liable to be quashed. Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that in view of the allegation and injury, it cannot be said that no offence is made out.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, since prima facie commission of offence is disclosed, hence no interference is required in the impugned order under section 482 Cr.P.C. However, if the applicants will appear and move bail application within 3 weeks from today, the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in accordance with law, in view of guide lines by Full Bench decision of High Court in case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in, 2004(57) ALR 390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in : 2009 (4) SCC 437.;