Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2019A482/25123/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the single judge found a prima facie case and refused to interfere with the summoning order. The court, however, directed the lower court to decide the pending bail application expeditiously within 30 days to avoid coercive action against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashment refused. Order directing lower court to dispose of pending bail application within 30 days if applicants surrender.

Suresh and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25123 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh And 7 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Shanker Mishra 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. 267 of 2018 (Bhupendra Singh Vs. Suresh and others), under Sections 147, 323, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh arising out of summoning order dated 5.3.2019 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh. 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 filed in counterblast to the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the applicants against the opposite party no. 2 and his family members. There was dispute between the parties regarding piece of land. Construction was made on the part of the applicants on their own land. Opposite party no. 2 and other created hindrance and caused the offence. No prima facie case is made out.

¶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 :- 5.8.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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