Dismissed

Rampal Singh and 3 Others v. State of U P and Another

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2019A227/2072/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Article 227 petition seeking to quash summoning orders in a criminal trial. It held that the existence of an offense is a disputed question of fact unfit for summary adjudication. An order for bail was suggested if applicants appear before the lower court within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing impugned orders is refused. Petitioner directed to apply for bail before the trial court within 30 days.

Rampal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U P and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2072 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Rampal Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2019 passed by Session Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No.222 of 2018 (Rampal Singh and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Compliant Case No.2876 of 2018 (Smt. Mithlesh Devi vs. Rampal and others), under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kanth, District Moradabad.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants along with three others, which was treated as complaint and the Learned Magistrate after taking evidence of complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the applicants along with others to face the trial for the offences under aforesaid sections vide order dated 30.10.2018. Aggrieved against this order, petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Being Criminal Revision No.222 of 2018 before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Moradabad, which was rejected by the Court vide order dated 14.2.2019 and the order of the learned Magistrate was affirmed. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that present criminal proceeding has been launched against the petitioners with malicious intention and just to harass as no offence is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have not applied its judicial mind before summoning the petitioners and thus have committed gross illegality in passing the impugned orders. He further submits that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶9

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under the writ jurisdiction. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Since, the petitioners have been summoned by the Trial Court, they will have various opportunities before the Trial Court to agitate their grievance at appropriate stages.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed .

¶11

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioners appear before the Court below in compliance of the summoning order passed by the Court below within 30 days of this order and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, (2009) 4, SCC 437.

¶12

Order Date :- 29.3.2019

¶13

Ajeet

Rampal Singh and 3 Others v. State of U P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal Singh and 3 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Singh Vs Addl. Collector F and R and 3 Ors.

Dr. Mahesh Prasadrtd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Gulab Singh Vs Boadrd of U.P. and Others

Rahul Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chaman Prakash and 9 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

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