Partly allowed

Sanjay @ Saneev Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2018CRLR/493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the order allowing process under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a cases arising from cognizable offence. While ruling that disputed facts require trial court adjudication, the Court stayed coercive action for 30 days and directed bail application via a specific previous precedent.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashment refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days; revision disposed of.

Sanjay @ Saneev Kumar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 493 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Sanjay @ Saneev Kumar And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Harish Chandra Varma

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

Admit.

¶8

By way of the instant revision, the revisionists have sought for quashment of the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Session Trial No.01 of 2016, State Vs. Rajeev and others, arising out of Case Crime No.143 of 2015 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot whereby the application 19-Kha under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the informant has been allowed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that general and vague allegations have been levelled against the revisionists. The revisionists were not charged initially by the competent court when charge was framed in this case against the husband of the deceased. However, during course of the trial, process was drawn against the present revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which is vexatious.

¶10

Attention of the Court was engaged to the fact that revisionist no.2 who happens to be sister-inlaw of the deceased (Jethani) is suffering from chronic ailment as averred under paragraph no.13 of the affidavit filed in support of the revision.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has supported the impugned order.

¶12

From the perusal of the material on record and

¶13

looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the revisionists. This is initial stage and nothing more is required for proceeding with the case. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the revisionists have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶15

The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

¶16

However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the revisionists 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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 revisionists.

¶19

With the above direction, the instant revision is finally disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 16.2.2018 rkg

Sanjay @ Saneev Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay @ Saneev Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P.

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

Balla and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Vs State

Santosh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

S.P. Ratra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vikas Pal and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Amit Sisaudiya Vs State of U.P. and Another