Dismissed

Ranjana Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2019A482/21501/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused the prayer to quash the summons in a criminal complaint alleging assault. Instead, it directed the trial court to expedite bail, discharge, and attendance exemption applications while holding no coercive measures pending disposition of the discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashance dismissed. Directions issued for expedited handling of bail and discharge applications by the trial court.

Ranjana Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21501 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjana Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 19.03.2019 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 10, Varanasi as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1457 of 2018 (Ramesh Tiwari v. Namwar Tiwari and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 427, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Jansa, District - Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicant no. 2 Manbhawati Devi had lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 392, 427, 325 of I.P.C. against opposite party no. 2 Ramesh Tiwari and his family members. In counterblast, opposite party no. 2 has lodged this complaint against the applicants maliciously, with false allegation, only to harass the applicants. In the complaint, date of occurrence is mentioned as 22.04.2018. However, in the statement of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 Ramesh Tiwari under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has narrated two occurrences - one that had taken place on 23.09.2017 and the other on 22.04.2018. As per statement of the complainant/opposite party no. 2, five persons entered into his residence and assaulted him and his wife with blunt object 'lathi-danda' (wooden stick) and kicks and fists. Even so, none from the side of opposite party no. 2/complainant has either been medically examined or has sustained any injury. Accordingly no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of proceedings and passing of the impugned summoning order by the court below.

¶9

Alternate remedy is available to the applicants to submit application under Section 245(2) of the Code to get themselves discharged. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Court to

¶10

exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶11

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

None of the aforesaid offences alleged 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.

¶13

In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their 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.

¶14

It is further directed that if applicants file an application for discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the court below by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶15

It is further directed that if applicants file an application before the trial court for exemption from personal attendance through counsel under Section 205 of the Code, the same shall be considered by the court sympathetically.

¶16

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicants.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 29.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Ranjana Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Devi and Another 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

Ajai Alias Janardan 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

Madan Baghel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Farida Khatoon and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another