Dismissed

Pradeep and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2019A482/22603/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the application to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that a prima facie case existed and the issues required evidence. The court directed the lower court to consider a bail application within 30 days of surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashment refused; direction issued for bail application consideration within 30 days of surrender.

Pradeep and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22603 of 2019

¶2

Applicant :- Pradeep And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶4

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sachin Kanaujiya, learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1036 of 2017 (Mohit Vs. Pradeep and others), under Sections 323, 324, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rabupura, District Gautam Budh Nagar arising out of summoning order dated 15.5.2019 pending in the court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that one FIR regarding the offence said to have been committed on 16.7.2017 had already been lodged on 18.7.2017 on behalf of the applicant against the opposite party no. 2 and 7.. Present complaint in the form of Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved thereafter in counterblast on 15.9.2017. No such offence, as alleged in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC. ever took place. Summoning order passed in the matter is illegal and without applying judicial mind.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer and argued that incident as alleged in the application 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was committed by the applicant. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and a prima facie case is made out.

¶9

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 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 applicants. 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.

¶10

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 applicants.

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.7.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Pradeep and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Waaris @ Golu Chhamman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raeesh Vs State of U.P.

Gangawati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Irfan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mairaj Quraishi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravindra and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another