Partly allowed

Rehan Ahmad and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2019A482/22216/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that no case was made out to quash the summoning order as a prima facie case existed. The prayer for bail direction was granted with the applicant to surrender within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash rejected; direction for expeditious disposal of bail application if surrender made within 30 days.

Rehan Ahmad and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22216 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rehan Ahmad And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balbeer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pintu Tiwari,Pintu

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 24.11.2018 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrte, Agra in Complaint Case No. 3133 of 2018 and entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 3133 of 2018 (Smt. Nida Ali Vs. Punam Arora and others) under Sections 323, 327, 342, 354, 120B, 363, 386, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nai Ki Mandi, District Agra. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pintu Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 is the brother-in-law and applicant no. 3 is the relative of the opposite party no. 2. Applicant no. 2 has no concern with the present matter. Summoning order passed in the matter is illegal. It is further argued that it appears improbable and unbelievable that applicant no. 2 who is the real uncle of opposite party no. 2 would commit offence under Section 386 of IPC against him. It is further argued that in the year 2017 opposite party no. 2 started

¶9

living with the family of applicant no. 1 along with her husband but after two months she left the house again and thereafter, she started several criminal prosecution against the applicants. Referring to the contents of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses and also documents annexed with the application, it is further argued that applicants are still ready to settle the dispute on the basis of compromise. It is further argued that continuation of proceeding of aforesaid complaint is abuse of the process of law and the same has been started to create pressure upon the applicants with malafide intention. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that two matters were referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre but no settlement was arrived at between the parties. No fruitful purpose would be served referring to the matter Mediation Centre. It is further submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also referred to the counter affidavit and argued that other matrimonial dispute between the parties have been disposed of directing the applicants to appear before the court concerned.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer

¶12

from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

¶14

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.8.2019 Mohit

Rehan Ahmad and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehan Ahmad and 2 Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Solanki and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Shoyeb Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyaveer Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Satish Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another