Allowed

Yogendra and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2018A482/27368/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order for lack of jurisdiction and failure to inquire into the role of each accused. The Magistrate was directed to re-enquire.

What did the court decide?

The summoning order dated 28.4.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Auraiya was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to re-enquire the matter.

Yogendra and 6 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27368 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Yogendra And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1802 of 2014 (Neelam Vs. Yogendra and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya including the summoning order dated 28.4.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Auraiya.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that as per complaint, offence is alleged to be committed in Rajasthan. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2008 LawSuit (SC) 331 and contended that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya has no jurisdiction to take cognizance in this case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A., appearing for the State contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Victim/opposite party No. 2 (Neelam) was subjected to cruelty by the applicants/accused at her parental home Auraiya as well as Jaipur. Accordingly, both the courts of Auraiya and Jaipur have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.

¶9

From perusal of the record, it reveals that complaint has been filed against seven persons. In statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., of complainant of Smt. Neelam and in statement under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., of witnesses PW-1 Panchi Lal and PW-2 Arvind Kumar, they have not specifically narrated the role of each accused. Applicants are residents of place beyond area in which, Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction. Accordingly, it was the duty of the Magistrate to enquire thoroughly in detail specifying each incidence and role played by each of the accused.

¶10

From perusal of the record, it further reveals that Magistrate has not enquired the matter thoroughly and as such, the impugned order is liable to the set aside.

¶11

Accordingly, the summoning order dated 28.4.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to enquire the matter thoroughly afresh by further recording the statement of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and thereafter pass appropriate order.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stands allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 10.12.2018 Jaswant

Yogendra and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra and 6 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

Siddharth Paliwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Janki Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ujagir Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Basu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Kiran Singh Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others