Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC13 May 2019A482/18573/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused application under Section 482 CPC to quash summoning order and proceedings under Section 406 IPC. Held that alternative remedy under Section 245(2) CPC exists. Directed applicants to file discharge application within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash of summoning order and entire proceedings refused. Direction to file application for discharge under Section 245(2) CPC within 30 days.

Ranjeet and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18573 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjeet And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 29.11.2018 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 35387 of 2018 (Rajendra v. Ranjeet and others), under Section 406 of IPC, Police Station - Babupurwa, District - Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that complainant/opposite party no. 2 Rajendra has not specified, either in the complaint or in his statement under Section 200 of the Code, the person to whom 'streedhan' was entrusted, Accordingly, no offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. is made out.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶9

Alternative remedy is available to the applicants to submit application under Section 245(2) of the Code to get themselves discharged. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Court to pass any order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶10

In view of above, prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶11

Accordingly, it is directed that in case the applicants file an application under Section 245(2) of the Code for discharge through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be decided by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicants.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.5.2019 I. Batabyal

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet and 2 Others 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

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

Irshad and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another