FATEH BAHADUR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.05.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Case No.116/2013, whereby the application of the applicants for discharge under Section 239 CrPC has been rejected. The applicants have further assailed the judgment and order dated 10.09.2014 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No.139/2014, whereby the revision has been dismissed.

(2.) THE case against the applicants was registered on an FIR lodged by the opposite party NO.2 with the allegations that she had some trees at Gata No.100 and on 17.07.2012, the applicants along with some other persons reached at the spot along with a tractor -trolley and picked up the trees while cutting them into pieces. When the opposite party No.2 stopped them from doing so, the applicants not only chased the opposite party No.2 but also threatened her with dire consequences. It is further alleged that the applicants were armed with country made pistol and dangerous weapons. The police registered a case on an application of the opposite party No.2 and after investigation submitted charge -sheet against them. The applicants approached this Court by way of filing an application under Section 482 being Criminal Misc. Case No.268/2013 for quashing of the charge -sheet, which was disposed of by the order dated 12.06.2013 with liberty to the applicants to surrender before the court below and apply for bail. It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the applicants appeared before the court below and they were consequently released on bail. After being released on bail, they sought their discharge under Section 239 CrPC which after due consideration was refused by the Judicial Magistrate. Learned Additional Session Judge, before whom, the revision against the aforesaid order came up for hearing also dismissed the same on the ground that the order passed by the Magistrate refusing the discharge application was justified.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.