Disposed

Ajay Mishra and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2019A482/19816/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused an application to quash a summons under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504 and 506 IPC. It however directed that bail applications must be decided the same day, discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. must be heard on merits by a speaking order, and appearance through counsel can be exempted sympathetically. Coercive action is stayed for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order refused. Bail to be expeditiously decided. Discharge under S. 245(2) to be decided on merits. Stay on coercive action for 60 days or surrender.

Ajay Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of Up and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19816 of 2019 Applicant :- Ajay Mishra And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Bhadauria 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 by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 06.03.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padrauna, Kushinagar as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1090 of 2018, (Ashwani Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others), under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Ramkola, District Kushinagar.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that no specific role has been assigned to applicant no.3 Smt. Renu and applicant no. 5 Smt. Kiran Devi. Accordingly, no offence is made out against them.

¶7

Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out.

¶9

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

¶10

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶11

In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶12

It is further directed that if applicant nos. 3 and 5 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.

¶13

However, if the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 apply before the concerned Magistrate to exempt their appearance through counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C., the same shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate, sympathetically.

¶14

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicant nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant nos. 3 and 5.

¶16

With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of. Order Date :- 17.5.2019 AKT

Ajay Mishra and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Mishra and 5 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Awasthi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Katiyar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Pinki @ Archana Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Patel and Another Vs State of U.P.

Chandu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chanda Devi and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.