Dismissed

Zakir Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2019A227/7077/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 227, the High Court refused to quash the District Judge's order and the Magistrate's summoning order, finding no infirmity or illegality and that a prima-facie case existed. The petitioners must surrender and apply for bail within 30 days to get consideration without coercive action; no further time is allowed.

What did the court decide?

Prayers to quash prayers dismissed. Petitioners directed to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days without coercive action.

Zakir Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7077 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Zakir Khan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.7.2019 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in criminal revision no.144 of 2019 as well as summoning order dated 4.5.2019 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) / Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate / Fast Track Court, Farrukhabad in complaint case no.951 of 2018 under section 406 IPC, P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the applicants. General allegations have been made in the complaint. Revision filed by the applicants was also dismissed on insufficient grounds. The impugned orders suffer from illegality and infirmity.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶9

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 orders do 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 applicants. 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 application is refused.

¶10

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

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants 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 applicants.

¶12

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

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.9.2019 ss

Zakir Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakir Khan and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Atik and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Vinod Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dr.v.K. Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Farhan Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalattar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shweta Sachan @ Shweta Chung Vs State of U.P. and Another