Allowed

Ummed and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019A227/8642/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A singlejudge divisional bench allowed the writ petition under Article 227. It dismissed the challenge to the order summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., finding no illegality or perversity. While rejecting the quashing prayer, the court directed that bail applications be decided within two months and suspended coercive measures during that period.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; prayer to quash orders refused; bail applications to be decided within two months; no coercive measures to be taken.

Ummed and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8642 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ummed And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 22.07.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 137 of 2019 (Ummed and another vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 12.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, Aligarh, passed upon application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 196 of 2016 (arising out of Case Crime No. 344 of 2015), State vs. Ramesh and others, under Sections, 420, 467, 468, 406 IPC, Police Station-Tappal, District-Aligarh.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

Petitioners' counsel has also tried to point out certain infirmities in the evidence which has been made the basis to summon the accused-petitioners under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The factual controversies have been raised and certain submissions which are more in the nature of ultimate defence that the accused may finally take to show their innocence, have also been made. The plea that the accused-petitioners has been falsely implicated, has also been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness which may persuade this Court to interfere in either of the impugned orders. There is no abuse of court's process perceptible in the same. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case have been appreciated in right perspective. The relevant law also have been taken into consideration by the lower court. This Court also does not see any such element of perversity in either of the impugned orders. The evidence has been produced during the course of trial appears to have been sufficient to justify the summoning of the petitioners as additional accused. There does not appear to be any element of perversity in the impugned orders. As per law that has been laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court's in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of

¶9

Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC-92 , though the standard of sufficiency of evidence which may justify the summoning of the accused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. is on a different footing than the standard of sufficiency that would justify the summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. But that does not go to mean that the standard to justify the summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be the same which is required to be employed at the time of final adjudication on the point of guilt or innocence of an accused. Considerations to summon an accused to face trial are different from the considerations which should ultimately vindicate the conviction of an accused. In the present matter in hand it cannot be said that the evidence as was available on record does not justify the summoning of the revisionist as additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. or that the ratio and the guidelines as have been provided by the Apex Court in its decision given in the case of Hardeep Singh's case (supra), have not been followed.

¶10

In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition has no merits and there is no justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order. The prayer to quash the impugned order is therefore, refused.

¶11

However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused-petitioners may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶12

In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.

¶13

It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this writ petition has been moved in this Court.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations this writ petition is finally disposed off .

¶15

Order Date :- 10.12.2019 JK Yadav

Ummed and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ashish Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahangi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kawaljeet Kaur Vs State of U.P. and Another