Dismissed

Vishwanath Gautam and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2018A482/39933/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order, holding that the complaint disclosed the commission of an offence. The court allowed applicants to apply for bail with a directive for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order dismissed; liberty granted to apply for bail within two months.

Vishwanath Gautam and 5 Ors. Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39933 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vishwanath Gautam And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 22.7.2017 passed by the learned J.M., II, Court No.18, Jaunpur, in Complaint Case No.814 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 385 IPC, P.S. Sureri, District Jaunpur with further prayer to stay the proceeding of Complaint Case No.814 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 385 IPC, P.S. Sureri, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Prima facie a perusal of the complaint and the material in the record discloses the commission of offence. No interference by this court is warranted. The limits of the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been long settled by the Hon'ble Supreme court. There is good authority in the law to fortify the said propositions. Reference can be made with profit in this regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The prayer for quashment of the summoning order dated

¶8

22.7.2017 passed by the learned J.M., II, Court No.18, Jaunpur is accordingly rejected.

¶9

Faced with this, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are willing to surrender before the court below and apply for bail. He recasts his relief accordingly. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not press reliefs sought for in the instant application.

¶10

In such view of the matter, it is open to the applicants to apply for bail. In case, the applicants apply for bail within two months, the bail application of the applicants shall be considered and decided expeditiously preferably on the same day by the learned trial court, in accordance with law, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported at 2004 (57) ALR 290 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamalendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported at 2009 (3) SC 322 .

¶11

With the above observation, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.11.2018 Pramod

Vishwanath Gautam and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Gautam 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

Arvind Mohan Jha Vs Union of India, Min. of Textiles, New Delhi and 2 Others

Mool Chand Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Constable No. 1896 Civil Police Kamla Ram Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sarfaraz Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anuj Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vijay Kumar Sharma and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another