Partly allowed

Jakir and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2019A482/25262/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 392 IPC arising from a complaint, found a prima facie case against the applicants. Consequently, the quashing prayer was refused. However, the court directed that bail applications filed with surrender within 30 days be considered and exempted coercive action for that period.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash dismissed. Direction for consideration of bail on surrender within 30 days and stay on coercive action for this period granted.

Jakir and Another 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. - 25262 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jakir And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamalendra Kumar Maurya

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama today filed by Sri Kamlendra Kumar Maurya, learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 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. 367 of 2018, under Section 392 IPC, Police Station Jaithara, District Etah arising out of summoning order dated 10.5.2019 pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Etah. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that initially one FIR was lodged in the matter and after investigation final report was submitted. Thereafter protest petition was filed and it was treated as complaint. It is also argued that summoning order was passed in the matter on the basis of evidence collected on the complaint. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that FIR was lodged belatedly. No plausible explanation has been given. No such incident ever took place and due to that reason Investigating Officer submitted final report. No prima facie case is made out.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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.

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

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 30.7.2019

¶14

Sachdeva

Jakir and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jakir and Another 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

Durgesh Nandan @ Durgesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nadeem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Krishna Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Iftekhar Husain Vs State of U.P.and Another

Nabi Sher and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh and 04 Others Vs State of Up and Another