In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashal of proceedings, the High Court held that a prima facie case was made out against the applicants. The court refused to interfere with the impugned order and disposed of the petition.
Application for quashal refused; application for expeditious bail disposal directed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23960 of 2019
Applicant :- Virendra Singh And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
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. 362 of 2019, under Sections 323, 392, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mant, District - Mathura arising out of summoning order dated 8.4.2019 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Mathura. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants were security guard in the company of opposite party no. 2. Remuneration was not being paid thereafter one complaint was filed before the Commissioner and an order was passed in that respect. Despite the order made by concerned Commissioner remuneration was not paid. FIR was lodged. Thereafter present complaint was filed in counter blast only to create pressure with malafide intention.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 stated that FIR was lodged later on after filing of the complaint. There is no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the summoning order. Prima facie case is made out. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
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 primafacie 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.
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.
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.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 18.7.2019
Sachdeva
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning order suffers from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting quashal under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Virendra Singh And 2 Ors
Om Prakash-VII
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
