Petitioner challenged summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. via criminal miscellaneous writ petition. Court found no illegality in impugned order, dismissed the petition, but allowed surrender within two months for bail consideration.
Writ petition refused; stay order vacated; leave granted to surrender within two months for bail consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8668 of 2006
Petitioner :- Gudil @ Sushil Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Rajesh Kumar Srivastva,Sandeep Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 9.6.2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Azamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 195/2005 as well as further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1931/2005 (Old no. 3390/2001) Durg Vijay Singh vs. Ram Jeet and others.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence.
Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned orders are passed after considering whole evidence on record and are just and legal.
From perusal of record, it transpires that application of Durg Vijay Singh under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning accused Gudil @ Sushil was rejected by Judicial Magistrate, First, Azamgarh vide order dated 15.9.2005 on the ground that till that date charges were not framed, only statement under section 244 Cr.P.C. had been recorded and even cross-examination was not done. Against that order, Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2005(Durg Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P.), police station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh filed by opposite party No.2 was allowed, order dated 15.9.2005 was set aside and accused/petitioner Gudil @ Sushil Singh was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hence this writ petition.
From perusal of record, it also transpires that in the statement of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C., name of this accused/petitioner was disclosed but he was not summoned in the order dated 13.2.2001 without showing any reason.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the writ petition is refused. Stay order, if any stands vacated.
However, it is observed that in case the petitioner surrenders and applies for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) . For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the petitioner to surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.10.2018 P.P.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Additional District & Sessions Judge committed error in summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Affirmed¶13
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Gudil @ Sushil Singh
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
