Disposed

Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2018A482/34209/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order, the High Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding mens rea preclude quashing. A direction was issued to file an application for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., with coercive measures stayed for two months.

What did the court decide?

Refused the prayer for quashing the summoning order. Directed the applicant to apply for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. within 30 days. Stayed coercive measures for two months.

Kalyan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34209 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Kalyan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.4.2018 passed in complaint case no. 580/2017 (Karan Singh Vs. Vivek Kumar and others) under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that from the allegation of complaint, no offence is made out against the applicant or any other accused.

¶9

As per complainant version, Sri Todi Singh has executed registered sale-deed dated on 9.9.2016 in favour of Vivek Kumar and Pushpa Devi. It is alleged that the applicant (Kalyan Singh) in collusion of Vivek Kumar and Pushpa Devi enticed Sri Todi Singh for transfer of the land. Sri Todi Singh, seller of the property have no complaint about the sale. There is no evidence on record to show the mens rea of applicant.

¶10

Alternative remedy under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., is available to the applicant to get himself discharge from the court concerned.

¶11

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, if applicant applies for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided on merit by the concerned Magistrate by a speaking order.

¶13

For a period of two months or till the decision of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant.

¶14

Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 28.9.2018 Jaswant

Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyan Singh 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

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Singh Sachan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bhuvnesh @ Sanni and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Chandra Chaurasiya and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jadawati Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another