Disposed

Shivraj and 10 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2019A482/27314/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash criminal proceedings, holding no prima facie illegality in the summoning order. The court directed that the applicants must surrender within 30 days to have their bail application disposed of expeditiously without coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Application refused; expedient disposal of bail application directed conditional upon surrender within 30 days; no coercive action allowed during that period for the applicants.

Shivraj and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27314 of 2019 Applicant :- Shivraj And 10 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 52 of 2019 (relating to complaint case no. 66 of 2017 Kalu Vs. Shivraj and others), under Sections 147, 148, 395, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Jakhlaun, District Lalitpur arising out of summoning order dated 29.5.2019 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶5

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

¶6

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that one N.C.R. was lodged in the year 2011 against the opposite party no. 2 by the applicants. Matter was investigated. Charge sheet was submitted and trial is going on. Opposite party no. 2 was not particpating in the proceeding of that case. Present complaint was filed in counterblast with malafide intention on the basis of false facts implicating the entire family members. Referring to the contents of the complaint as well as statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it was also argued that continuation of the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint is an abuse of proess of law. Number of persons are said to be involved in the present matter but complainant failed to produce any .injury report. Thus it is argued that concerned Magistrate while passing the summoning order did not apply judicial mind.

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

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 :- 6.8.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Shivraj and 10 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj and 10 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

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

Dhirendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manish @ Neetu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khalid Ali Vs State of Up and Another