Dismissed

Anil Gupta and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2019A482/18067/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge declined a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash criminal proceedings and summoning order, finding a prima facie case. Court directed surrender within 30 days for expeditious bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings and summoning order refused. Directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; no coercive action pending.

Anil Gupta and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18067 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Gupta And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1646 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station New Agra, District - Agra pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate-II, Agra as well as summoning order dated 9.10.2017 passed by the court concerned. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the applicants. General allegations have been made in the complaint. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶12

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.7.2019 ss

Anil Gupta and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Gupta and 2 Ors. 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

Yatendra @ Pintoo and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahab Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashraf and 03 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt.Ankita Awasthi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mukesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Mamta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.