Disposed

Narayan Das Sonakiya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2019A227/5070/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging summoning orders in a cheating dispute under Section 406 IPC. Finding no infirmity in the impugned orders, the Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to direct the lower court to dispose of the bail application expeditiously and prohibited coercive proceedings for 30 days upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Directed lower court to decide bail application expeditiously if petitioners surrender within 30 days; no coercive action against petitioners for 30 days.

Narayan Das Sonakiya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5070 of 2019 Petitioner :- Narayan Das Sonakiya And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kishore Pandey,Ram Kishore Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Om Prakash Tripathi,Swapnil Chauhan

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to allow the present petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 18.5.2019 and the order dated 14.9.2018 passed by the court below in complaint case no. 2139 of 2018 under section 406 IPC, police station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai. Further prayer has been made to restrain the court below from further proceeding in aforesaid complaint case.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶5

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the summoning order passed in the matter is illegal. The partition took place between the parties regarding the landed property in the year 1999. Both the parties were living separately. There was no occasion to provide said jewelries to the petitioners by the respondent no.2. Entire allegations levelled in the complaint are false. Complaint has been filed with malafide intention only to pressurize the petitioners. No incident took place as alleged in the complaint. Revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed on insufficient grounds.

¶6

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the prayer and argued that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Date, time and place of incident has clearly been disclosed in the complaint as well as in the statement recorded thereon. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶7

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record 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. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the petitioners. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present petition is refused.

¶8

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.

¶9

Hence, it is directed that in case the petitioners surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶10

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the petitioners for surrender before the court concerned.

¶11

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 12.7.2019 / ss

Narayan Das Sonakiya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Das Sonakiya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noor Mohammad Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Upma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Usha Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Smt. Lubna and 03 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P. and Another

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