Disposed

Awtar Singh Chug and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2018CRLR/4971/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision challenging an order summoning accused under Section 406 IPC. The Court applied a prior order directing the expedited consideration of bail applications. The revisionist is granted a reprieve from coercive actions for sixty days while bail is considered.

What did the court decide?

The revision was disposed of; coercive action stayed for 60 days; prayer to expedite bail delivery on day of filing was issued.

Awtar Singh Chug and Another Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4971 of 2005

¶3

Revisionist :- Awtar Singh Chug & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Devendra Saini Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,J.S.Audichya,S.Misra,Santosh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Devendra Saini, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶6

This revision has been filed against the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 5206 of 2005 (Kulbhushan v. Awtar Singh) under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Mandi, District - Saharanpur, whereby the accused-revisionists - Awtar Singh Chug and Renu Khera have been summoned for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.

¶7

As per complaint version, the revisionists Awtar Singh Chug and Renu Khera, on their demand, were given a Maruti Car, having Registration No. H.R. 02 - C 6568 owned by opposite party no. 2 Kulbhushan Seth. Later on, when opposite party no. 2 asked the revisionists to return his car, they refused to do so. After enquiry being made under Section 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that revisionist nos. 1 and 2 are brother and sister. Paramjeet @ Poonam, sister of the revisionists, was married to opposite party no. 2 Kulbhushan Seth. Due to matrimonial dispute, opposite party no. 2 has filed this complaint. Earlier on 29.06.2005, opposite party no. 2 had submitted an application to the Registering Authority (Motor Vehicle), Jagadhari about the alleged theft of his Maruti Car and after that, this complaint has been filed with false allegation.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.

¶10

From the perusal of complaint and impugned order, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the revisionist. Learned trial court has passed the impugned order after appropriate enquiry and appreciating the evidence on

¶11

record. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.

¶12

However, offence under Section 406 IPC is not punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶13

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicant-revisionists file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶14

For a period of 60 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant-revisionists.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the instant revision is finally disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 27.4.2018 I. Batabyal

Awtar Singh Chug and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awtar Singh Chug 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanak Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Ker and Others Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Inder Jeet Vs State of U.P.