High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jay Singh Chauhan & Others v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 26907 of 2007  RD-AH 17763 (14 November 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Criminal Misc. Application No.26907 of 2007
Jai Singh Chauhan & others Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Shiv Charan J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the facts of the case.
The present application has been moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the order dated 19.6.2007 passed by ACJM Azamgarh in Criminal Case No.1040 of 2007 Smt. Saroja Devi Vs. Jai Singh and others be set aside. By this impugned order learned Magistrate summoned the applicants for the offence u/s 323,504,506 and 452 IPC.
Applicant's counsel argued that there is no such incident as alleged in the complaint. There is a dispute between the parties for partition of a immovable property and in order to pressurize the applicants a false complaint was instituted. It is further argued that according to the allegation of the complaint the incident took place on 28.4.2007 at about 10.00 a.m whereas one application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved in the court of Magistrate for direction to the police for register of the case and investigation and in that application the date of the incident is 28.4.2007 at about 11.30 p.m and the Magistrate ordered for investigation the case. Regarding one and the same incident both the cases cannot be proceeded. In view of Section 204 Cr.P.C. the proceedings of the complaint case must be stayed. That injuries were in simple in nature. It is further argued that no independent witness has been cited in the complaint.
Learned AGA opposed the argument of learned counsel for the applicants.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the state. It is a fact that two incident took place on the same day i.e.28.4.2007 but timing of both the incidents entirely different. The incident of the complaint case took place at 10.00 a.m and whereas the incident of the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. took place at about 11.30 p.m. Hence I will agree with the argument of the applicant that regarding one incident two reports were adopted simultaneously. In the first incident at about 10.00 a.m these applicants illegally tress passed the house and caused injuries whereas in the incident took place at about 11.30 p.m the Tractor Trolley of the applicant was stolen. This incident of 11.30 p.m is being investigated by the police by order of the Magistrate and there is no reason for staying the proceedings u/s 210 Cr.P.C.
Learned Magistrate after being satisfied the evidence produced before the court ordered for summoning the applicants. Offence is made out on the allegation of the complaint whether the witnesses are interested or independent. All these pleas is to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage. But for the purpose of summoning of the applicant reliance were placed on the interested witnesses.
For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that there is no interference in the order and the application deserves to be dismissed.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed summarily. However, it is provided that as the offence u/s 452 IPC is a technical offence, the bail application shall be considered expeditiously preferably on the same day if possible. For a period of 15 days no coercive method shall be adopted.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.