Disposed

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

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2018A482/37736/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that applicant contended complainant filed false allegations. Since alternative remedy under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. exists, extraordinary jurisdiction not exercised. Application refused but discharge application directed to be filed.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash refused; applicant directed to file discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. within 30 days; no coercive action ordered pending.

Smt. Surabhi Maheswari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37736 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Surabhi Maheswari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjive Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 07.03.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Budaun as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2560 of 2016 (Amarish Kumar Maheswari vs. Chandra Prakash Gupta and another) under Section 406 I.P.C. Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Budaun.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant Smt. Surabhi Maheswari has filed F.I.R. on 24.07.2016 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. In counter blast, Opposite Party No. 2 Amarish Kumar Maheswari has lodged this complaint with false allegation maliciously. Allegations made by Amarish Kumar Maheswari in the complaint show that no offence is made out against the applicant. It is further contended that Smt. Surabhi Maheswari has also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 09.11.2016 before the Family Court Bareilly.

¶8

As per provision of Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., applicant has alternative remedy to get himself discharge before trial court. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶9

In view of above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding as well as cognizance order in the aforesaid complaint case, is hereby refused.

¶10

However, if applicant submits application for discharge under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be decided by the court below with reasoned and speaking order.

¶11

Till the disposal of the discharge application under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C., no coercive action shall be taken against her.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 16.11.2018 VG..

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Surabhi Maheswari 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

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

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

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

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