Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2018A482/4647/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused the application to quash the summoning order under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC as prima facie evidence existed. However, a 30-day stay on coercive action was granted pending a bail application, subject to the guidelines in MUNAWWAR CASE.

What did the court decide?

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

Mahesh Chandra and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4647 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Aadil Siddiqui 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 26.07.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.4, Bareily in Complaint Case No.1378 of 2017 (Smt. Bharti vs. Mahesh Chandra and others) arising out of Case No.2531 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Izzat Nagar, District Bareily, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.4, Bareily and cognizance order dated 26.07.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.4, Bareily.

¶7

It has been urged that the 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 323, 504, 506 IPC. The summoning order is illegal and not sustainable and entire proceeding is in abuse of process of the Court. He further submits that some of the applicants are children of tender age and he has no concern in the entire episode, as such

¶8

in this background of the case, this Court should come to rescue of some of the applicants.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 323, 504, 506 IPC.

¶11

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 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

¶15

avail to the applicants.

¶16

However, since some of the applicants are children of tender age, as intimated by learned counsel for the applicants, but this particular aspect has not been corroborated by any documents, therefore, this factual aspect can be considered by the trial court as and when raised by applicants or though their guardian.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 13.2.2018 Raj

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chandra and 8 Others 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

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.

Israr Vs State of U.P. and Another