Dismissed

Kaushal Kishore Shukla and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2019A482/24446/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants. The court held that a prima facie case exists and allowed the Magistrate to proceed. However, the court directed the lower court to expeditiously consider a bail application if the applicants surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing and staying proceedings is refused. A direction is issued for the lower court to consider a bail application expeditiously if the applicants surrender within 30 days from today

Kaushal Kishore Shukla and 2 Others Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24446 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Shukla And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Maurya,Narendra 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. 5448 of 2018 (Old No. 1519 of 2019) (Hari Om Gaur Vs. Kaushal Kishor and others), under Sections 452, 323 IPC, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad arising out of summoning order dated 14.3.2019 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad. 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 present complaint was started in counterblast to the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicants against the opposite party no. 2. It is also argued that application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicants was treated as complaint and an enquiry is going on. Referring to the aforesaid facts and documents it is also argued that summoning order passed in the matter is illegal.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has 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.

¶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 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.

¶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 :- 23.7.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Kaushal Kishore Shukla and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Kishore Shukla and 2 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Nivas Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Prem Pal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Prakash Parihar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and another

Dr. Ravi Goyal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another