Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018A482/35904/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash summoning order dismissed as disputed facts not suitable for Section 482 CrPC. Bail prayers deferred to appeal guidelines. No coercive action against applicants for specified periods.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; bail disposal deferred; no coercive action against applicants for 60 days; applicant 3's discharge application to be considered within 30 days.

Pradeep Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35904 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar,Brij Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav,Ramesh Prajapati

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of the applicants to argue the case. Heard learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A., for the State of U.P.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 18.9.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Complaint Case No. 1637 of 2015 (Savita Devi Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others) under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dheena, District Chandauli.

¶7

The opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A., for the State contended that the material on record was sufficient for passing of the summoning order in the aforesaid case.

¶8

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.

¶9

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if applicants apply for bail, the same shall be disposed of on the same day, on which they shall be taken into custody as per the guidelines prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1501 .

¶12

It is further provided that in case, the applicant No. 3 claims discharge through counsel under Section 239 Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed by the trial court by speaking order.

¶13

Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no. 3.

¶14

As far as applicant nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, it is directed that for a period of 60 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

This application stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Jaswant

Pradeep Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajneesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ibraheem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another