Dismissed

Jogindra @ Pintu @ Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019A482/16514/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court refused to quash a summoning order in a matrimonial bigamy case, holding that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court granted a temporary stay against coercive action if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; coercive action stayed for 45 days contingent on surrender and bail application.

Jogindra @ Pintu @ Satya Pal Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16514 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jogindra @ Pintu @ Satya Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Azaz Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the summoning order dated 23.12.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1098 of 2017 (Smt. Savita Vs. Jogindra @ Pintu), under Section 494 I.P.C., P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Ghaziabad.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had solemnized second marriage with one Priti during the subsistence of his first marriage.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, summoning order as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.)

¶12

192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings is refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within forty five days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) .

¶14

For a period of forty five days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Zafar

Jogindra @ Pintu @ Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogindra @ Pintu @ Satya Pal 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

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati Sonography Centre) and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Savita Patel @ Dhanni Devi Vs Suresh Kumar Patel and 2 Others

Alham Siddki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Kashyap and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Maya Devi and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another