Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2018A482/4595/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined a U/S 482 CrPC application to quash a summoning order. Finding prima facie evidence existed, the court refused quashment but directed that bail be considered within 30 days under specific guidelines and stayed coercive action temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of summoning order refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days pending bail application.

Pintu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4595 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pintu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kashi Naresh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought quashment of the summoning order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Aligarh, in Complaint Case No.1967 of 2016 Smt. Chanchal Kumari Vs. Pintu and another, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.

¶7

Allegations made in the complaint and statement are mischievous and the court below has failed to appreciate the proper facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly, summoned the applicants under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The summoning order is illegal and not sustainable and entire proceeding is in abuse of process of the Court.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for quashment of the summoning order and submitted that the summoning order is just and legal which requires no interference by this Court.

¶9

Perusal of the record itself reflects that at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie evidence is lacking for summoning the applicants under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶10

Considered the above submissions and the contents disclosed in the complaint. No good ground is made out for quashment of the impugned summoning order. Accordingly, the prayer for quashment of the impugned

¶11

summoning order is refused.

¶12

However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the applicants appear before the court concerned within 30 days from today and move application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of in terms of the guidelines / observations given in the judgment and order dated 3.7.2014 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21679 of 2014-Munawwar and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and another.

¶13

For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

It is made clear that in the event no such application is moved within the time prescribed above, this order will be of no avail to the applicants.

¶15

With the above direction, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.2.2018 rkg

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asha Ram and Others Vs State of U.P.

Sameer Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashish Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Manju Ashiwal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mahesh Chandra and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another