Disposed

Trapti and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018A482/15517/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as disputed facts required adjudication. Court directed same-day disposal of bail, considered discharge within 30 days, and stayed coercive action for defined periods to ensure speedy trial and justice.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; bail to be decided same day; discharge within 30 days; coercive action stayed for applicants 1, 3, 2, and 4.

Trapti and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15517 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Trapti And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramsagar Yadav,Sanjai Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 14.07.2016, the cognizance order dated 03.09.2016 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 155 of 2016 (State v. Ashok Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), Police Station - Soraon, District - Allahabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 7, Allahabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that Trapti, applicant no. 1, has filed first information report under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 08.07.2015 against her husband opposite party no. 2 Rakesh Kumar and his family members. Applicant no. 1 also filed application under Section 125 of the Code for maintenance and under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In counterblast of these cases, opposite party no. 2 Rakesh Kumar has lodged this case maliciously, with ulterior motive, only to harass the applicants.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer so made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of proceedings and passing of the impugned summoning order by the court below. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate concerned.

¶9

From the perusal of first information report and material brought on record, and looking into the facts of the case,

¶10

it cannot be said, at this stage, that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶11

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶12

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet, the impugned cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶13

However, none of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. The police has submitted charge sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶14

In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶15

It is further directed that in case applicant nos. 1 and 3 - Trapti and Laxmi claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court/magistrate concerned by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶16

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant nos. 1 and 3 - Trapti and Laxmi.

¶17

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicant nos. 2 and 4 - Ashok Kumar and Naveen Kumar surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 I. Batabyal

Trapti and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trapti and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramji Gupta and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arbind Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Maurya and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brij Mohan Vs State of U.P.

Mayank Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.