Partly allowed

Geeta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019A482/18561/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court examined a plea to quash criminal proceedings under Section 494 IPC based on allegations of kidnapping and lack of a prima facie case. The Court found that the issue requires evidence yet to be led. Consequently, it refused to quash the proceedings but directed the lower court to expedite the disposal of a future bail application if the appli

What did the court decide?

Application refused on merits; direction issued for expeditious disposal of bail application if applicant surrenders within 30 days; no coercive action permitted during said period.

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18561 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Geeta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1214 of 2018 (Manoj Kumar Vs. Geeta and others), under Section 494 IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut arising out of summoning order dated 4.10.2018 and 24.4.2019 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sardhana, Meerut. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that offence under Section 494 IPC is not made out. Applicant was never married with the opposite party no. 2. She was kidnapped/abducted by the opposite party no. 2. Thereafter she was forced to make statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thus referring to annexure of the supplementary affidavit filed today it is also argued that in crime no. 421/11 final report was submitted. Protest petition was filed by the applicant and same was dismissed in non prosecution. Thereafter applicant filed a complaint, in which opposite party no. 2 was summoned vide order dated 1.10.2016. It is also argued that opposite party no. 2 challenged the order dated 1.10.2016 through criminal revision which was allowed. Matter is still pending before the concerned Magistrate. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it is also argued that continuation of the proceedings of aforesaid complaint against the applicant is abuse of process of law.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicant has 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.

¶10

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 applicant. 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies 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/given effect to against the applicant. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.9.2019

¶14

Sachdeva

Geeta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta 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

Ram Avtar Bhar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Shyam Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sayeed Khan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devi Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another