Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC29 May 2019A482/21502/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summoning order under Section 482 CrPC in a case of alleged assault. The court directed that bail applications be decided on the same day, discharge applications under Section 245(2) CRPC be decided within 30 days, and exemption from personal attendance be considered sympathetically.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the summoning order and proceedings was refused. Directions issued for speedy bail, discharge, and attendance exemption.

Farida Khatoon and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21502 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Farida Khatoon And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Paritosh Kumar Malviya 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 08.04.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C., Siddharth Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 20 of 2019 (Kaishar Jahan v. Frahim and others), whereby applicant nos. 1 to 4 have been summoned for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and applicant nos. 5 to 7 have been summoned for the offence under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C., Police Station - Chillhiya, District - Siddharth Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that there is old enmity between the parties. As per allegation made in the complaint, nine persons having blunt object 'lathi-danda' (wooden sticks) and sharp-edged weapon 'gadasa' (chopper) entered into the residence of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 Smt. Kaishar Jahan and assaulted her with kicks and fists and pushed her on the ground. Even so, Smt. Kaishar Jahan did not sustain any injury. No specific role has been assigned to any of the accused-applicant.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of criminal 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 exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶10

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

¶11

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 apply 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 trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶15

It is further directed that if applicant nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, namely, Farida Khatoon, Reshma, Arsha, Ujjama, Abdul Majeed and Abdul Rashid 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farida Khatoon and 6 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

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

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