Dismissed

Harshit Jain and 7 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2019A482/24038/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order and staying proceedings. The court found no case to interfere as no prima facie illegity was established and factual disputes required evidence. A direction was issued for the applicants to surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing and stay refused; direction issued to surrender within 30 days for consideration of bail.

Harshit Jain and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24038 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Harshit Jain And 7 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Anup Kumar Khare,Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shamshuddin Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

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. 33 of 2017 (Chand Babu Vs. Harshit Jain and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Khudaganj, District -Shahjahanpur arising out of summoning order dated 24.4.2019 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Shahjahanpur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

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

¶8

Subission of learned counsel for the applicants is that applicant no. 1 to 3 are real brothers. Applicant no. 4 is father of applicant no. 1 to 3. Applicant no. 4 to 7 are also real brothers. One FIR has already been lodged against the oppoist eparty no. 2 and his family members regarding the offence said to have been commited on 30.9.2016. Matter was investigated. Charge sheet has been submitted. Present complaint was filed in counterblast with malafide intention showing same date of offence i.e. 27.1.2017. No such incident, as alleged in the complaint, ever took place. It is also argued that continuation of the present complaint is the abuse of process of law. Concerned Magistrate while passing the summoning did not take into account the aforesaid facts and without aplying judicial mind. passed the summoning order.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 argued that incident is said to have been committed on 30.9.2016. FIR was lodged on 27.1.2017. Complaint was also filed on 27.1.2017 itself. It is a cross version. At this stage only prima facie case has to be seen. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.

¶14

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.8.2019

¶15

Sachdeva

Harshit Jain and 7 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshit Jain and 7 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

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Satyaveer Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dinesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saheed Khan and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.