Dismissed

Rajesh Pathak and 3 Ors. v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2019A482/14298/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 application, the Delhi High Court refused to quash the summoning order and trial proceedings, holding that the alternative remedy under Section 245(2) CrPC remains available to the applicants for seeking discharge.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the summoning order and entire proceedings refused; applicants directed to file Section 245(2) application for discharge within 30 days.

Rajesh Pathak and 3 Ors. Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14298 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Pathak And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Singh,Digvijay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the 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 21.07.2016 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 8, Farrukhabad as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 708 of 2015 (Surya Kant Dixit v. Rajesh Pathak and others), under Sections 323, 406 of IPC, Police Station - Merapur, District - Farrukhabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that as per prosecution version, applicant no. 1 Rajesh Pathak, father-inlaw of opposite party no. 2 Surya Kant Dixit had borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- from Surya Kant Dixit for the admission of his daughter. Later on, on demand being made, he returned the borrowed amount. Learned counsel further contended that four persons reached at the residence of opposite party no. 2 and assaulted him. None from the side of opposite party no. 2 has sustained any injury or has been medically examined. The complainant in his statement under Section 200 of the Code, has not made any allegation against applicant no. 4 Kalpana, daughter of applicant no. 1 Rajesh Pathak. Accordingly, no offence is made out.

¶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 exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶10

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

¶11

refused.

¶12

Accordingly, it is directed that in case the applicants file an application under Section 245(2) of the Code for discharge 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 action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Rajesh Pathak and 3 Ors. v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Pathak and 3 Ors. v. State of Up 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

Munish Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangroo @ Hari Shanker Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhinav Chaturvedi @ Sonu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Inam Vs State of Up and Another

Radha Krishna Vs State of Up and Another

Baburam and 9 Others Vs State of Up and Another