Application filed to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stating no prima facie case. Court refused quashing but directed expeditious bail consideration upon surrender. No coercive action for 30 days.
Prayer to quash refused; direction to consider bail within 30 days of surrender; no coercive action for 30 days.
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. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19631 of 2019
Applicant :- Rambali And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 3728 of 2017 (Suneela Vs. Rambali), under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Mariyahoon, District - Jaunpur arising out of summoning order dated 30.11.2018 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jaunpur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that summoning order passed in the matter is illegal. There is contradiction in the statement of the complainant as well as in the version of the applicant. Place of incident has been changed. There are dispute between the parties regarding the land on which the construction was said to be made. Complaint was filed to create pressure. No such incident ever took place.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicants have 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.
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 primafacie case is made out against the applicants. 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.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.
Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply 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 applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.7.2019
Sachdeva
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning order under criminal proceedings suffers from any infirmity or illegity warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the plea of no prima facie case can be decided at this stage without leading evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rambali And 4 Others
Om Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
