Dismissed

Irshad and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2019A482/18514/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash summoning order and proceedings in a PIL alleging 498-A and 506 IPC offences, the Court refused quashing on disputed facts. It directed expedient bail and discharge proceedings pursuant to Supreme Court guidelines and judgments.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing proceedings refused. Directions issued for expedient bail and discharge applications.

Irshad and 4 Others Vs State of Up and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18514 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Irshad and 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of UP And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A., for the State of U.P., and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.2.2019 passed by First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2344 of 2018 (Afsana Vs. Azruddin and others) under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC, Police Station Naugawa Sadat, District Amroha.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A., opposed the prayer made and submissions thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Alternative remedy is available to the applicants under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., to get themselves discharge from the court concerned.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if applicants apply for bail, the same shall be disposed of on the same day, on which they are taken into custody as per the guidelines prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1501 .

¶13

It is further provided that in case, the applicants claim discharge

¶14

through counsel under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below, expeditiously by a speaking order, considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 Law Suit (SC) 716.

¶15

Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶16

However, if the applicant Nos. 2 to 5 apply before the concerned Magistrate to exempt their appearance through counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C., the same shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate, sympathetically.

¶17

This application stands disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 13.5.2019 Jaswant

Irshad and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad and 4 Others v. State of Up 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

Sandeep Kumar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Premanand Garg and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Tara Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ratnesh Chandra Mishra and Another Vs State of Up AND2 Other

Smt. Veenakshi Verma and 05 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ranjeet and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another