Vijay Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Another

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J

Heard Shri A.P. Tiwari, leraned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Shri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed in complaint case No. 3397/2018 "Jyoti Vs. Vijay" under Sections 364/504/506/120B/324 I.P.C., P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. With a further prayer it has also been prayed that the court below be directed to reconsider and decide the application of the petitioner dated 30.07.2022 in complaince of the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5216/2022 "Vijay Shukla Vs. State of U.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 25.07.2022, this Court while disposing of the Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5216/2022 granted liberty to the petitioner to appear before the learned court below within two weeks from the date of order by filing appropriate application taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him and if such application was filed within the stipulated time, the same was directed to be considered and decided expeditiously as per law.

The order passed by this Court in the aforesaid anticipatory bail is extracted below:-

"Be that as it may, since the proceedings are pending before the learned court below and the applicant has given his undertaking that he shall appear before the learned court below and shall co-operate with the proceedings, therefore, I hereby dispose of this anticipatory bail application at the admission stage giving liberty to the present applicant to appear before the learned court below within a period of two weeks from today by filing appropriate application taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him and if such application is filed by the present applicant within the aforesaid stipulated time, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the learned court below, expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.

However, it is observed that till the period of two weeks from today, the present applicant may not be taken into custody by authority concerned. If he does not appear and files any application before the learned court below in the aforesaid complaint case within the aforesaid stipulated time, the protection of two weeks shall be expired automatically."

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that learned trial court while rejecting his application has wrongly denied him to give benefit of Section 88 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it was obligatory on the part of the court below to release the petitioner after taking bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. and it was not open for the trial court to reject the application of the petitioner.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 has submitted that earlier the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. numbered as Application U/S 482 No. 47281/2019 "Vijay Shukla and another Vs. State of U.P. and another" which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15.02.2022 in respect of the present petitioner. Thereafter he filed a second 482 petition which was disposed of providing that if the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from the date of order and applies for bail, the same was also directed to be considered and decided by the court below.

It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that after rejection of first 482 application and even after disposal of second 482 application, the petitioner although having full knowledge about the criminal proceedings going on against him kept on absconding from the trial court.

Lastly it has been submitted on behalf of respondent no. 2 that he has filed anticipatory bail application before the coordinate Bench of this Court which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 25.07.2022 wherein he was granted liberty to file appropriate application and the same was directed to be decided as per law, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that in view of direction given by this Court it was obligatory for the trial court to release the petitioner after accepting the bonds.

Perused the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the trial court by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of Section 88 Cr.P.C. has been rejected, relevant part of the order is extracted below:-

Perusal of the said order dated 01.08.2022 shows that the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were pending against him and he was aware about the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court and still did not appear.

Perusal of the record of the trial court further shows that the order dated 27.01.2020 whereby the matter between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court and interim order was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Application u/s 482 No. 3158/2020 was not brought to the notice of the trial court.

Further it appears that the petitioner has filed multiple 482 petitions since 2019 and was deliberately absconding and vide order dated 25.07.2022 he was only granted liberty to move appropriate application taking all pleas and the same was directed to be decided in accordance with law. No such direction as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was given by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned trial court considering the conduct the petitioner; the fact that proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were pending against him; for a long time he was absconding and also the fact that he did not deliberately made himself present before the trial court in spite of full knowledge of the proceedings before the trial court, by using its discretion has rejected the application under Section 88 Cr.P.C.

No illegality can be attributed to the impugned order and even otherwise filing of multiple 482 petitions is not permissible, hence, the petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.