Dismissed

Sangram Pathak and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2019A482/15259/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court refused application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, holding that applicants had an alternate remedy under Section 210 CrPC. Application disposed of with direction to approach Magistrate within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing proceedings and summoning order refused; directed to file application for stay under Section 210 CrPC within 30 days.

Sangram Pathak and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15259 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sangram Pathak And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi 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 entire criminal proceedings as well as the summoning order dated 16.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Agra, in Complaint Case No. 5170 of 2006 (Smt. Sushila Devi v. Anjana Sharma and others), under Section 420 of I.P.C., Police Station - Shahganj, District - Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that in this case, on the information of opposite party no. 2 Smt. Sushila Devi, a first information report at Case Crime No. 0690 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B of I.P.C. was lodged against the applicants and two other persons. After investigation, the police submitted final report. On the protest petition filed by opposite party no. 2, the impugned order has been passed. He further contended that on the same fact, Nitin Verma, son of opposite party no. 2 Smt. Sushila Devi, had also lodged an F.I.R. at Case Crime No. 0172 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 of I.P.C., in which also, the police, after investigation, submitted final report. On the F.R. submitted by the police, the Magistrate has ordered for further investigation, which is pending.

¶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 in the aforesaid case by the court below.

¶9

As per provision of Section 210 of the Code, alternate remedy is available to the applicants to file an application before the Magistrate concerned for stay of the proceedings of the complaint case. 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

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

¶11

Accordingly, it is directed that if the applicants file an application before the Magistrate concerned under Section 210 of the Code for stay of the proceedings of the complaint case, through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

Till the disposal of application under Section 210 of the Code, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 29.4.2019 I. Batabyal

Sangram Pathak and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Pathak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noor Mohammad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Murti and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ramannu Lal @Munnu Lal and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt Dipsi Vs State of Up and Another

Laxmi Shankar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs State of Up and Another