Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. This Court vide order dated 22.02.2000 had issued notice to the opposite party No. 2 for filing counter affidavit and further proceedings of case No. 276 of 1993 (Satish Chandra v. Bahori Lal and Ors.) pending before the III Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh were stayed for three months. Till date, no counter affidavit has been filed and the order sheet shows that interim order was also not extended.
3. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the summoning orders dated 22.06.1993 and 17.07.1997 passed in case No. 276 of 1993 (Satish Chadra v. Bahori Lal and Ors.) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 504 and 506 IPC pending before the III Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants 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. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that initially the N.C.R. was filed against three persons, but subsequently, complaint has also been filed against as many as eight persons including three persons against whom N.C.R. was already filed. Therefore, it is argued that filing of complaint is bad in law.
5. 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 u/s 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
6. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and the summoning orders is refused.
7. 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 their prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges'' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and Anr. v. 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 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. 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.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
