Disposed

Gaurav Kalara and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2018A482/34192/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a summoning order and criminal proceedings alleging Section 498A IPC offences. The court held that no offence is made out and that the issue of false allegations must be decided by the trial court based on evidence, refusing the prayer to quash. Bail considerations and 45-day protection from coercive action were also directed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order refused; bail to be considered on same day; 45 days protection from coercive action.

Gaurav Kalara and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34192 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav Kalara And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 01.08.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, District Moradabad and entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 2998 of 2015 (Smt. Jyoti Kalara Vs. Gaurav Kalara and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Moradabad as well as N.B.W. dated 14.07.2017.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that present case has been filed by opposite party no. 2 Smt. Jyoti Kalara against applicants with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Opposite Party No. 2 Smt. Jyoti Kalara has concealed her previous marriage. In this reference, applicant no. 1 Gaurav Kalara has lodged F.I.R. against Opposite Party No. 2 Smt. Jyoti Kalara in which charge-sheet has been filed by the police.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order by the trial court.

¶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. Whether allegations are false or true, can be decided on the basis of evidence by trial court, not by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer to quash the summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

None of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , 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.

¶13

For a period of 45 days, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶14

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.9.2018 Sharad/-

Gaurav Kalara and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Kalara and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Kishor

State of U.P. Vs Fareed

State of U.P. Vs Chabboo Sahani and Another

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Raju and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another