Dismissed

Manoj and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2018A482/37631/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the prayer to quash the summoning order as disputed issues of facts cannot be decided under Section 482 CrPC. It also barred sending the case to mediation, citing apex court precedent, but issued directions for accelerated bail and discharge hearings.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing summons and proceedings refused. Bail to be disposed of on same day. Stay on coercive action for applicant no. 2 till discharge; applicant no. 1 for 60 days.

Manoj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37631 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A., for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 15.2.2018 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Khurja, District Bulandshahr Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1199 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act as well as the entire proceedings of the complaint case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that this complaint has been filed against the applicants maliciously with false allegation. General role has been assigned to all the applicants and as such, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A., has opposed the prayer so made and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

From the perusal of 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.

¶10

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 the Code.

¶11

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

¶12

Apart from arguing on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the case may be send to mediation centre so that it may be amicably settled between the parties through mediation.

¶13

There is specific provision in the Code in this regard. As per provision of Section 265B of the Code, an accused may file application for plea bargaining in the Court in which such offence is pending for trial.

¶14

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 held that the directions to settle a case after it is registered, is not a correct expression of law.

¶15

Accordingly, this Court cannot send the matter to the mediation centre for mediation/settlement.

¶16

However, it is directed that if applicants apply for bail, the same shall be disposed of on the same day on which they are taken into custody, as per the guidelines prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Social Action Forum's case (supra) .

¶17

It is further directed that if applicant no. 2 (Smt. Somoti) files discharge application under Section 245(2) of the Code through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be decided by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶18

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no. 2.

¶19

For a period of 60 days from today or till applicant no. 1 (Manoj) surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of .

¶21

Order Date :- 16.11.2018 Jaswant

Manoj and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj and Another 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

Mohammad Abid Vs Surendra Kumar Bhadauriya and 3 Others

Mata Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Awasthi and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Karan Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Surabhi Maheswari Vs State of U.P. and Another

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