Dismissed

Smt. Kanti Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018A482/33307/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application u/s 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under IPC 406. It held that no legal infirmity appeared in the lower court's summoning order and the applicant failed to justify quashing, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of summoning order, bailable warrant, and proceedings refused; application dismissed.

Smt. Kanti Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33307 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Kanti Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Kumar,Chandra Bhushan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedingd of the complaint case no. 1295 of 2010 (New No. 5073 of 2012) (Balbir Vs. Anil Pal and others) under Section 406 IPC, PS Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of A.C.M.M.-II, Kanpur Nagar and summoning order dated 26.3.2011 as well as bailable warrant dated 15.3.2018 with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel submits that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and same has been treated as complaint case. Thereafter, the statement of opposite party no. 2 and witnesses have been recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoning order has been passed against the applicant to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Learned counsel submits that in the version of FIR and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. there are major contradictions and no case is made out under Section 406 IPC against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she has no knowledge about filing of complaint case and passing of summoning order and no notice of summon has been served upon her and when bailable warrant has been issued and police came to the house of applicant, then only she got the knowledge of the same. Learned counsel submits that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court should come to rescue the applicant.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicant by submitting that after due consideration of facts and material available on record summoning order has been issued against the applicant and only to evade the court proceedings present application has been filed by the applicant. Learned AGA further submits that applicant is not cooperating with the proceedings of the case and she has chosen not to appear before the court below and, as such, bailable warrant has been issued against her. Learned AGA submits that present application is devoid of merit and same is liable to be rejected by this Court.

¶9

In the present case, it is admitted position that the proceedings in question are pending since the year 2011 as on 26.3.2011 summoning order was passed against the applicant to face the trial under Section 406 IPC but she has chosen not to appear before the concerned court and then bailable

¶10

warrant has been issued against the applicant.

¶11

In view of the above, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the orders impugned as well averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any legal infirmity in the orders impugned, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate has passed the orders impugned after satisfaction that prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is refused. Present application is devoid of merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.10.2018 Shekhar

¶14

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.]

Smt. Kanti Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kanti Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Singh Bhadauria and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Kapil Gaur and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu @ Aditya Kumar Vs State of U.P. and another

Chandra Sen Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another