Court No. – 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 46756 of 2013
Applicant :- Dr. Arun Kumar Singh Jai Diagnostic Centre
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sriprakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning
order dated 06.08.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mirzapur, in Complaint Case No. 4311 of 2013, u/s 28 of the P.C. and
P.N.D.T. Act, P.S. Adalhat, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant involve
several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to
the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded.
By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court the applicants cannot
persuade the court to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The
submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant call for
adjudication on pure questions of fact and while doing so even the
submissions made on points of law can also be appropriately gone into by the
trial court in this case.
The quashing of the complaint can also be done only if it does not disclose
any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its
basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR
1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426
make the position of law in this regard clear.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which
might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the
prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts
process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers
to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if
for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
As requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court
within a month from today through his counsel and move an application
claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide
the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall
not exceed a period of three months from today.
No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of
three months from today or till disposal of the discharge application,
whichever is earlier.
If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels
persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been
summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging
the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of
summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing
the discharge application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. On the other hand if the lower
court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the
accused has been rightly summoned and the material produced by the
complainant does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an
order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law
and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the
accused as the law permits.
It is clarified that if applicant does not avail of this order within the stipulated
period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2013
Court No. – 50