Partly allowed

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2019A482/20753/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order rejecting an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a third accused (Somveer). It directed the lower court to reconsider the application to verify the accused's role, noting his presence during the victim's medical treatment as indicative of connection to the crime.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.04.2019 quashed; matter remitted to lower court to reconsider Section 319 Cr.P.C. application within three months.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20753 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Romeshwari Prasad,Devendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.04.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Mathura in S.T. No. 374 of 2017 (arising out of Case Crime No. 0415 of 2016) under sections 323, 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Raya, District Mathura (State Vs. Om Prakash and others) whereby the application of the applicant u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel on behalf of applicant is that a young girl has been subjected to cruelty which ultimately resulted to her death. The learned court below have committed gross illegality while passing the impugned order 27.04.2019 in as much as the fact that at the time of medical treatment accusedopposite party no. 3 namely Somveer was present which shows the accused Somveer has some connection with the alleged crime.

¶8

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the material on record, without going into the merits of the case it would be appropriate that application of the applicant moved u/s 319 Cr.P.C. be again consider with regard to the accused Somveer (opposite party no. 3).

¶9

In view of the above discussion the order dated 27.04.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Mathura is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order in the application of the applicant after verifying the role of the opposite party no. 3 preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶10

With the above direction the application is finally disposed off.

¶11

Order Date :- 24.5.2019 Arti

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Amit @ Manoj Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Deep Dwivedi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shashi Bala Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Shankuntala Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Srishti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Other