Disposed

Nitu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 May 2019A482/18809/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to quash the summoning order as an alternative remedy existed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. Additionally, the trial court was directed to decide the discharge application within 30 days pending which no coercive measures would be adopted against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the summoning order was refused; applicants directed to apply for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. within 30 days; no coercive measures during pendency.

Nitu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18809 of 2019 Applicant :- Nitu And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 13.02.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, District-Agra in Complaint Case No. 1627 of 2018 (Pappi Vs. Nitu and others), Police Station-Basaee Araila, District Agra whereby applicants have been summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504, 452, 506, 427 I.P.C.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicant no. 1 Nitu is wife of opposite party no.2 Pappi. No specific role has been assigned to any of the applicant. Whole family members including two ladies have been falsely implicated in this case. As per version of complaint, six persons assaulted the complainant and his father. Complainant has sustained no injury and superficial two injuries have been shown to Devi Charan, father of the complainant, which are fabricated.

¶7

Alternative remedy under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., is available to the applicants to get themselves discharge from the court concerned. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶8

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶9

However, if applicants apply for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided by the trial court on merit by a speaking order.

¶10

Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants.

¶11

Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 14.5.2019/AKT

Nitu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitu and 4 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

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

Indrawati and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajnath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gulrez Ahmed Vs State of Up and Another