Disposed

Ajai Alias Janardan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 May 2019A482/21098/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in a property dispute involving Sections 420 and 506 IPC, the court refused to quash the case due to disputed facts. The court directed same-day decision on bail and specified a 30-day window for a speaking order on discharge applications for some applicants.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned order and proceedings refused; dismissal directed on same-day basis; intermediates measures suspended until disposal of discharge and bail applications.

Ajai Alias Janardan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21098 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ajai Alias Janardan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 15.11.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 187 of 2018 (Ram Pratap Vs. Ajai Kumar and others) under Sections 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that after four years of the occurrence opposite party No. 2 (Ram Pratap) has filed this complaint maliciously with false allegation only to harass the applicants. Applicant No. 1 (Ajai @ Janardan) has filed application before the Registrar to compel the opposite party No. 2 (Ram Pratap) to execute the sale deed. Then in counter blast, opposite party No. 2 (Ram Pratap) has filed this complaint. As per version of the complaint, a deed of sale was prepared to be executed by the opposite party No. 2 (Ram Pratap) in favour of the applicant No. 1 (Ajai @ Janardan). Applicant No. 2 (Rahul Singh Yadav) and applicant No. 3 (Suraj Soni) were witnesses of the alleged sale deed. It was agreed between the parties that opposite party No. 2 (Ram Pratap) shall execute sale deed in reference of 2 biswa of his land in favour of applicant No. 1 but in sale deed 17 biswa of land has been mentioned. Even from the allegation made in the complaint, no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶8

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

¶9

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. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

However, if applicant Nos. 2 and 3 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.

¶14

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

¶15

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicant No. 1 (Ajai @ Janardan) surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶16

With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 28.5.2019 Jaswant

Ajai Alias Janardan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajai Alias Janardan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Dr. Vikram Singh Bhadauria and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuber Nath Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Guljari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Dular and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another