Dismissed

Baburam and 9 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2019A482/15240/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application seeks quashing of a summoning order in a petty criminal case alleging assault. The High Court refused quashability under Section 482 CrPC, citing sufficient material and availability of alternative remedies like Section 245(2) CrPC. The court directed the trial court to consider bail and discharge applications expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Directions on speedy bail and discharge application disposal given.

Baburam and 9 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15240 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Baburam And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Joshi 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 28.04.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Moradabad as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6884 of 2017 (Rajpal v. Babu Ram and others), under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station - Bilari, District - Moradabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicant no. 1 Baburam had filed an F.I.R. against opposite party no. 2 Rajpal and his family members. In counterblast, opposite party no. 2 Rajpal has lodged this complaint maliciously, with false allegation, only to harass the applicants. As per version of the complaint, ten persons assaulted Rajpal and his relative, Nanhe by blunt object 'lathi-danda' (wooden stick). Even so, none from the side of opposite party no. 2 has been medically examined or has sustained any injury. Opposite party no. 2 Rajpal in his statement under Section 200 of the Code, made allegation only against applicants Baburam, Rajkumar, Munesh and Kallu. No specific allegation has been made against any other accused. Even so, learned Magistrate has summoned all the applicants.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of proceedings and passing of the impugned summoning order by the court below.

¶9

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

¶10

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

None of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶13

It is further provided that if 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.

¶14

It is further provided that if applicant nos. 2 to 10, namely, Kallu, Dhirendra, Shiv Singh, Mannu alias Narendra, Bhura alias Satyaveer, Raju, Sanju, Rajkumar and Munesh file an application before the trial court for exemption from personal attendance through counsel under Section 205 of the Code, the same shall be considered by the court sympathetically.

¶15

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

¶16

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Baburam and 9 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburam and 9 Others 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

Cases cited

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

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

Radha Krishna Vs State of Up and Another