Dismissed

Vijendra Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2019A482/24086/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings involving criminal breach of peace and punishment for insult. This Court refused to quash the matter at this stage, observed no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the discharge application, and directed expeditious disposal of pending bail applications within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Directed that bail application filed within 30 days be disposed expeditiously; no coercive action for 30 days.

Vijendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24086 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijendra Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶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. 3262 of 2015 (Pratap Singh Vs. Vijendra Singh and others), under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nagina Dehat, District - Bijnor arising out of summoning order dated 3.5.2019 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina Dehat, Bijnor. 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

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have not committed the present offence. Summoning order passed in the matter is illegal. It is further argued that after passing the summoning order applicants have approached this Court vide Application U/S 482 No. 21947 of 2014 and this Court vide order dated 2.7.2014 disposed of the application directing the applicants to move discharge application. It is further argued that discharge application moved by the applicants was illegally rejected by the concerned Magistrate by impugned order without considering the submissions raised by the applicants. It is further argued that police has made fair investigation. Nothing was mentioned in the protest petition against the investigation made by the police. It is also argued that applicant no. 2 and 3 were not present at the place of occurrence. They participated in the examination at Kanpur and Pilibhit on the date of incident. Their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of incident is improbable and unbelievable. It is also argued that concerned Magistrate ought to have allowed the discharge application discharging the applicants in compliance of direction in the order passed by this Court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the matter.

¶9

In this matter, as is evident from the record that on 2.7.2018 this Court passed the following order :

¶10

"This Criminal Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the Criminal Case No.26 of 2012 under section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC PS. Nagina Dehat, District Bijnor and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid case. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the civil dispute is pending in between the parties, hence to put undue pressure and to harass the applicants, on false allegation and fabricated injury report the First Information Report was lodged in which final report was submitted.

¶11

Thereafter on protest petition the Magistrate concerned proceeded as a complaint case in which applicants were summoned. Since the proceeding is malicious, hence the summoning order as well as impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. Considered the submissions of counsel for the parties. The disputed question of facts cannot be decided at this initial stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same requires appreciation of evidence. Hence at this initial stage no interference is required. However, if discharge application is filed through counsel on behalf of the applicants within thirty days, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same expeditiously on merit by a speaking and reasoned order, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law. Till disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶12

If discharge application is rejected and the applicants appear before the courts below within thirty days and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437. If due to any reason the bail application could not be disposed off same day, the applicants may be released on interim bail till disposal of the bail application. With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off"

¶13

It appears that discharge application was filed annexing certain documents. Concerned Magistrate after hearing the parties vide impugned order rejected the application observing that a prima facie case is made out. No new evidence has come on record. If the observation recorded by the concerned Magistrate in the impugned order is taken into consideration, no illegality is found. Applicants have opportunity to move discharge application at appropriate stage. At this juncture on scrutiny of the entire evidence it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. Plea of alibi shall be decided by the Trial Court after evidence. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.7.2019

¶17

Sachdeva

Vijendra Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Singh 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

Surendra Kumar Pandey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kunchchal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kushwaha Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Nivas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajpal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chokhe Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another