Court refused to quash the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an offence was made out. However, granted 60-day protection from coercive action and directed expedited disposal of bail.
No coercive action for 60 days; bail to be decided on same day; interim bail if day decision impossible.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18416 of 2019
Applicant :- Sachin Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 08.10.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J. D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, District-Bijnore in Complaint Case No. 1281 of 2015 (Smt. Sujata Vs. Sachin Kumar and another), under Sections 354, 323, 386, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bijnore pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bijnore.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
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 applicants.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences 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.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, 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.
For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of . Order Date :- 10.5.2019 AKT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning order in the complaint case under Sections 354, 323, 386, 504, 506 IPC be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether interim bail and directions regarding coercive action are appropriate despite refusal to quash proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and anotherReferred¶12
Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachin Kumar
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
