Dismissed

Mahesh and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2019A482/21515/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash trial proceedings under Section 482 CPC refused as conflicting versions of incident not adjudicable. Directions issued for same-day bail consideration, reasoned discharge order, exemption from personal attendance, and suspension of coercive measures for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Bail to be considered within same day. Coercive measures stayed for 60 days. Discharge application to be disposed by reasoned order.

Mahesh and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21515 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mahesh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Babu Gaur 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 14.05.2019 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 525 of 2018 (Ashok Kumar v. Mahesh and others), under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 392 of I.P.C., Police Station - Katra, District - Shahjahanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that Seema Devi, wife of applicant no. 2 Gangaram had lodged a report of noncognizable offence against opposite party no. 2 Ashok Kumar and his brother Arun Kumar, in which investigation is going on. In counterblast, opposite party no. 2 has lodged this complaint maliciously, with false allegation, only to harass the applicants, showing the occurrence of the same day as was shown by Seema Devi in her N.C.R. None from the side of opposite party no. 2 has sustained any injury.

¶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

As Smt. Seema Devi, wife of applicant no. 2 Gangaram has lodged the N.C.R. and opposite party no. 2 Ashok Kumar has lodged this complaint on the same occurrence, which version is correct, cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶10

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

¶11

However, none of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven

¶12

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 the applicants file an application for discharge at an appropriate stage, 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. 2 to 5 - Gangaram, Mahipal, Rajpal and Budh Pal 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

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be adopted against them.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 29.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Mahesh and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh and 4 Others v. State of Up 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

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

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