Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2019A482/25306/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act regarding a matrimonial dispute. No prima facie case was deemed absent, and the plea was remitted to the trial court. A direction was issued for bail consideration within 30 days if applicants surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for quash dismissed. Direction issued to consider bail within 30 days of surrender; no coercive action for that period.

Radhakishan 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. - 25306 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Radhakishan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today 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. 612 of 2018 (Surendra Singh Vs. Radhakishan and others), under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad arising out of summoning order dated 20.9.2018 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that daughter of opposite party no. 2 was to be married with the applicant no. 2. Offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for the applicants referred to the contents of the complaint and statement of the witnesses recorded on the complaint and further argued that essential ingredients of the entrustment is not available in the present matter. Applicants never denied for marriage. No prima facie case is made out. Concerned Magistrate while passing the summoning order did not take into account the facts and evidence in right perspective and has committed illegality.

¶9

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.

¶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 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 :- 13.8.2019

¶14

Sachdeva

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakishan 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

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

Vasudeo Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Brijesh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.