Disposed

Raj Kumar Swarnkar v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2019A482/20116/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order in a Customs Act inspection case. Instead of deciding the merits, the Court issued directions for the applicant to raise objections before the lower court within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to applicant to file objection application before the lower court within two weeks; no coercive action against applicant during this period.

Raj Kumar Swarnkar Vs Union of India and Another — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20116 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Swarnkar Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought quashment of the summoning order dated 23.01.2019 and the proceeding in Complaint Case No.46 of 2019, Union of India Vs. Raj Kumar, under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962, pending in the court of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Varanasi.

¶7

Contention raised on behalf of the applicant is confined to the ambit that allegations made in the complaint and statement are mischievous and the court below has failed to appreciate the proper facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly, summoned the applicant under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962. The summoning order is illegal and not sustainable and entire proceeding is in abuse of process of the Court.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that in this case, from bare perusal of the complaint itself, it transpires that the summoning order is just and legal which requires no interference by this Court.

¶9

Upon perusal of the averments made in the accompanying affidavit and upon consideration of document annexed therewith, obviously the contentious issue raised can not be gone into by this Court at this stage and whatever objection the applicant has against the summoning order, the same can be raised before the court below instead of raising the same before this Court and the court below shall, upon presentation of such application, dispose of the same on its merits.

¶10

Thus, in view of above, it is provided that in case the applicant appears and moves application before the court concerned within two weeks from today, raising objection against the summoning order, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the court concerned in accordance with law after giving

¶11

opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously.

¶12

For a period of two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶13

It is made clear that in the event no such application is moved within the time prescribed above, this order will be of no avail to the applicant.

¶14

With the above direction, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.5.2019 rkg

Raj Kumar Swarnkar v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Swarnkar v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Nair Vs State of U.P.

Rajauti Devi Vs State of Up and 6 Others

Sanjay Kumar Keshri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj @ Ankit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajal Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Swaroop Gautam Vs State of Up and Another