Quashed

Deonath Pandey and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 May 2019A482/16527/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a summoning order dated 17.7.2018 issued against the applicant under sections 498A IPC and the D.P. Act for failing to contain the substance of allegations, deeming it a vague notice. The court observed fresh orders could be issued if necessary.

What did the court decide?

The summoning order dated 17.7.2018 and entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 3072 of 2018 were quashed.

Deonath Pandey and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16527 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Deonath Pandey And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Mani,Sachida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash/set aside the impugned charge sheet no. A-25/18 dated 18.4.2018.summoning order dated 17.7.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.- 1st, Ballia in Criminal Case No. 3072 of 2018 (State v. Deonath Pandey and others) and entire proceeding of Criminal case No. 3072 of 2018 (State v. Deonath Pandey and others) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.- 1st, Ballia under section 498A, 323, IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Case Crime No. 0703 of 2017, under sections 308, 498A IPC, and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Dokati, District Ballia.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the summoning order does not contain the substance of allegation which has been passed against the applicants and has been issued in a routine manner on a printed format. It is further contended that the summoning order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon judgements of this Court reported in 2004 (5) ACC 734 Aurangzeb and others v. State of U.P. and another; 2002 (45)ACC 627 Ranjeet Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others and 2008 (61) ACC 540 Har Charan v. State of U.P. and another, in support of his contention.

¶8

In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by learned AGA that there is no illegality in passing the summoning order.

¶9

From perusal of the summoning order dated 17.7.2018 , it appears that the substance of allegations made against the applicants has not been mentioned. It is a vague notice, therefore, it is hereby quashed.

¶10

However, it shall be open to the learned Magistrate concerned to issue fresh summoning order, if necessary.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 ssm

Deonath Pandey and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deonath Pandey and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Manjoor Ali and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Kamlendra @ Lalla Vs State of U.P.

Yatendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Radha Devi @ Kesharwati and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Thapliyal Vs State of U.P. and Another