Amit Kumar v. State of Up and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
The single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a summoning order. The court held that disputed facts and testimonial worth of evidence are for the trial court and no prima facie case was made out at this stage.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for quashing the complaint and summoning order refused. Bail application directed to be decided by the court below within two months.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 48 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32456 of 2018 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the summoning order dated 18.10.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur, Amroha in Complaint Case No.214 of 2017 (Hompal Singh vs. Joli and others), u/s 354 I.P.C., P.S.-Hasanpur, District-Amroha and revisional order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Amroha in Criminal Revision No.11/2018 (Amit Kumar Urf Aashu vs. State of U.P. and others).
Heard applicant's counsel as well as learned A.G.A.
Entire record has been perused.
All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint and summoning order under Sections 354 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the impugned orders suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness warranting interference.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Amit Kumar
- respondent
State Of Up
Coram
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/32456/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court