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

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2018A482/37845/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge rejected the prayer to quash summoning orders in a domestic dispute under S. 482 CrPC due to unresolved factual disputes. The court declined mediation referral but directed expedited bail disposal, reasoned decisions on discharge applications, and stayed coercive action against specific applicants for 60 days. Other applicants must surrender to apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of coercive action on applicants 3-6 indefinitely; applicants 1 & 2 for 60 days; provisions for discharged application by counsel within 30 days; bail expedited after custody.

Rajan Awasthi and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37845 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajan Awasthi And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar 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 18.10.2017 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 42938 of 2016 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. Applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 - Babalu Tiwari, Jyoti and Dilip Shukla are living separately from applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 - Rajan Awasthi, Prem Lata and Moni.

¶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 nos. 3 - 6 - Moni, Babalu Tiwari, Jyoti and Dilip Shukla file 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 nos. 3 - 6.

¶19

For a period of 60 days from today or till applicant nos. 1 and 2 surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 15.11.2018 I. Batabyal

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Awasthi and 5 Ors. 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

Rajeev Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asraf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Jayant Kumar Sircar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Abid Vs Surendra Kumar Bhadauriya and 3 Others

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

D. Manjunath and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another