Vipin Sinha, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) THE applicant No. 1 is husband of the victim and applicant nos. 2 to 6 are family members of the victim. So far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, the following order is passed: The present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet in Case No. 304 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354(ka) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Paschim Sharira, District Kaushambi and further to stay the proceeding of the said case arising out of Crime No. 86 of 2014 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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 applicant. 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. 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 applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr. P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused. However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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 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 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.
(3.) SO far as applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, the following order is passed. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and leaned A.G.A. for the State. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been summoned under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354(ka) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. Issue notice to opposite party No. 2 returnable at an early date. Four weeks time is granted to opposite party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three weeks thereafter. Prima facie, a case for grant of an interim relief has been made out. In the meantime, further proceedings of Case No. 304 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 86 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354(ka) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Paschim Sharira, District Kaushambi pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi shall remain stayed. List thereafter.;