Dismissed

Km. Pinki @ Archana Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 May 2019A482/14852/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a summons under Section 319 CrPC. The court held that the juvenile plea must be decided by the trial court. Concurrently, the court directed a 30-day suspension of coercive measures and expedited bail hearing upon surrender, citing Social Action Forum guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Rejected the application. Directed 30-day suspension of coercive measures and expedited bail upon surrender.

Km. Pinki @ Archana Kumari Vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14852 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Km. Pinki @ Archana Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan,Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brajesh Kumar Solanki

¶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 against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Budaun, in Criminal Revision No. 626 of 2015 (Km. Pinki @ Archana v. Niti and Another), dismissing the revision against the order dated 03.12.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate II, Budaun, in Case No. 1477 of 2011 (State v. Rahul and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 965 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 324 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Usawa, District - Budaun. Vide order dated 03.12.2014, the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 of the Code for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 324 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was juvenile on the date of the occurrence. She was present in her school at the time of occurrence. Accordingly, no offence is made out against her. The courts below have passed the impugned orders without any evidence, which is not sustainable.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. The applicant has been summoned on the basis of evidence of injured witness Niti, who has sustained injury by sharp-edged weapon. Niti has specifically stated in her statement that applicant Km. Pinki @ Archana Kumari has assaulted her.

¶9

In view of above, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. The order dated 03.12.2014 passed by learned Magistrate is based on evidence and substantive reasoning.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant may take plea before the trial

¶11

court that the applicant is juvenile. The issue of juvenility of the applicant shall be decided by the court below and not by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶12

In the result, the instant application stands rejected.

¶13

However, it is directed that if applicant surrenders and applies for bail, her bail application shall be disposed of on the same day on which she is taken into custody as per the guidelines prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another v. Union of India reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1501.

¶14

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be adopted against her.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Km. Pinki @ Archana Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Pinki @ Archana Kumari 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

Indrawati and 4 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

Santosh Kumar Awasthi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Katiyar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Hameed and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another