Dismissed

Vasudeo v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2019A482/25088/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal complaint proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that a prima facie case existed and the plea of malafide required evidence at trial. The Court directed the court below to consider a bail application within 30 days of surrender by the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash and stay proceedings refused. Direction given for expeditious disposal of bail application upon surrender within 30 days.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25088 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vasudeo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 121 of 2016 (Vidhya Devi Vs. Prithviraj and others), under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 395 IPC, Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj arising out of summoning order dated 21.12.2016 pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Kannauj. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

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

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that one complaint has been filed on behalf of the applicant side against the opposite party no. 2. Thereafter one FIR was also lodged against the family members of the opposite party no. 2. Present complaint was filed in counterblast with malafide intention. Referring to the witnesses examined on the complaint and the parties in the civil suit initiated on behalf of the applicants in the year 2007 it is further argued that defendants named in the civil suit are the witnesses in the present complaint. This fact itself shows that present complaint was filed in counterblast with malafide intention.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicant has 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

In this matter, as is evident from the record, although civil litigation before the civil court/revenue court are pending between the parties, complaint proceeding and the State case have also been initiated on behalf of the applicant against the family members of the opposite party no. 2 but the complaint was filed in the present matter with the specific allegations against the applicants and other co-accused.

¶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 prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. 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 applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

¶12

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies 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 applicant. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.8.2019

¶14

Sachdeva

Vasudeo v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudeo 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

Jahir Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

K.K Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Navnit Kumar Narang and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhakishan and 3 Others Vs state of U.P. and another

Brijesh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.