Disposed

Jitendra and 2 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2018A482/26747/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summoning order as disputed questions of fact precluded exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, it directed the Magistrate to refer the case for mediation per Rajesh Sharma and allowed for bail considerations. It also stipulated timelines for discharge applications and barred coercive action during mediation and discharge procee

What did the court decide?

Refusal of prayer to quash; direction for mediation referral; stay on coercive action pending mediation and discharge.

Jitendra and 2 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26747 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.05.2018 passed by Ist Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 2589 of 2017, (Manager Singh Vs. Jitendra and others) under Sections 323, 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Lanka, District - Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide and as such, the present proceedings are sheer abuse of the process of the court.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made and submissions thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and contended that the material on record was sufficient justifying passing of the impugned order by the court below.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 Cr.P.C.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, as per direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2017 0 AIR (SC) 3869, learned Magistrate is directed to refer the case to committee constituted for mediation at District Court, Varanasi within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶13

The committee of mediation centre shall submit its report within one month from the date of receipt of the case before the learned Magistrate.

¶14

If bail application is filed by the applicants, the same shall be decided according to direction contained in Rajesh Sharma 's case (supra).

¶15

It is further provided that in case applicant no. 3 Smt. Poonam Singh claims discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. through her counsel and applicant nos. 1 and 2, Jitendra and Deena Nath claim discharge in person within 60 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the trial court.

¶16

Till the submission of report by the committee of mediation centre, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no. 1 Jitendra and applicant no. 2 Deena Nath.

¶17

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no. 3 Smt. Poonam Singh.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 16.8.2018 VG..

Jitendra and 2 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra and 2 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

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

Shree Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Danish and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Shambhoolal Vs State of Up and 2 Others