Disposed

Smt Chanchal and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2019A482/19664/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the court found no valid reason to quash the complaint calling for summoning as revision and trial stages provided adequate relief. The application was disposed of with a direction to appear in the lower court for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of direction to appear in court concerned within a month to apply for bail.

Smt Chanchal and 2 Others Vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19664 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Chanchal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 478 of 2018: Yogesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Chanchal and others, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahr, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Anoopshahar, including summoning order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Anoopshahar.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the complaint filed against applicants is based on false facts and does not disclose any offence, applicants have been summoned for. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no. 2 who is husband of applicant no. 1 has filed a complaint against his wife, mother-in-law and brother-in-law, as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the applicant Smt. Chanchal for the offence under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC just to harass her wife.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer saying facts contained in the complaint and the evidence given in inquiry in support thereof constitute the offence, applicants have been summoned for.

¶9

Having heard submissions of learned counsel of both sides, and having perused the materials available on record, I find that the order of summoning can very well be challenged by filing a revision against it before the competent court, there appears to be no valid reason for the interference or quashing of the complaint, as, apart from the remedy of revision, the applicants will have one more stage before the learned court below to appear and argue before the court at the time of framing of charge to show that there is no prima facie case made out. Hence, the application has got no force and there is no occasion for quashing the impugned order and entire proceedings.

¶10

The application is accordingly disposed of with the direction that if applicants appear before the court concerned within a month from the date of this order and apply for bail then the court concerned shall heard and decide the same expeditiously and preferably on the same day.

¶11

Order Date :- 23.5.2019

¶12

Bhanu

Smt Chanchal and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chanchal and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Yadav (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Saxena and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Vs State of U.P.and Another

Asar Mohammad @ Asru Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahtab Alam @ Safullah Vs State of U.P.