Dismissed

Indraman and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2019A482/11767/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge refused to quash criminal proceedings and impugned order dismissing revision, finding a prima facie case. Court granted conditional relief allowing bail consideration upon surrender within 30 days without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; conditional liberty granted to approach court below for bail within 30 days without coercive action.

Indraman and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11767 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Indraman and 3 others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.778 of 2015, Smt. Phoolwati Vs. Indraman and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 380, 325 IPC, Police Station Milak, District Rampur against applicant nos. 1 to 3 and under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 380, 325, 354 IPC against applicant no. 4, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur as well as order dated 17.11.2015 passed by ACJM, Rampur and Judgment dated 18.9.2018 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 238 of 2016 Indraman and others Vs. State of U.P. and another.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. They have not committed any offence as alleged against them. Earlier to present complaint, the applicant no. 1 had lodged an NCR against the husband and brothers of opposite party No. 2 in which charge sheet has been submitted against them and, in retaliation to that proceeding present complaint has been lodged with an intent to harassment and create pressure upon the applicants. Further submission is that summoning order 17.11.2015 is not in accordance with law and while dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 17.11.2015, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur also did not appreciate the material on record in right perspective.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2016 as well as Judgment dated 18.9.2018 passed in revision and there is no ground to quash the proceeding of aforementioned case.

¶9

A perusal of record shows that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate dealing with the 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, there is no illegality in the Judgment passed in revision.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned summoning order dated 17.11.2015, Judgment dated 18.9.2018 and the proceeding of aforementioned case therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P . For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.3.2019 Ram Murti

Indraman and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indraman 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

Gopi Chand Vs Addl. Collector and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs Addl. Collector /a.D.M. Admin and Others

Vikram and Another Vs Addl. Collector /a.D.M. Admin and Others

Ankur Goyal Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Anand Vs State of U.P. and Anr.