Dismissed

Indrawati and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 May 2019A482/11121/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the prayer to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings, holding that alternative remedies under Section 245(2) CrPC are available. The applicants were directed to file an application for discharge within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; directed to file Section 245(2) application for discharge within 30 days.

Indrawati and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11121 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Indrawati And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 25.07.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Farendra, Maharajganj as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 139 of 2018 (Kashiram v. Indrawati and others), under Section 147, 504, 506, 379 of I.P.C., Police Station - Kolhui, District - Maharajganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that opposite party no. 2 Kashiram has not specified the accused who have cut the tree. Civil dispute exists between the parties, due to which, the present complaint has been filed maliciously, with false allegation, only to harass the applicants. Even the witnesses examined in favour of opposite party no. 2 have not specified the role of any of the applicants, in their statement under Section 202 of the Code. Accordingly, there is no evidence against the applicants.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶9

Alternative remedy is available to the applicants to submit application under Section 245(2) of the Code to get themselves discharged. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Court to pass any order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶10

In view of above, prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶11

Accordingly, it is directed that in case the applicants file an application under Section 245(2) of the Code for discharge

¶12

through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be decided by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicants.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 14.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Indrawati and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrawati and 4 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

Ratnesh Chandra Mishra and Another Vs State of Up AND2 Other

Smt. Veenakshi Verma and 05 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ranjeet and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajnath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Gulrez Ahmed Vs State of Up and Another