The High Court refused to quash the summoning order in a criminal complaint case, holding the execution was enforceable and the applicants were not required to surrender.
Applicants to surrender within thirty days; no coercive action during this period; bail prayer deferred.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28073 of 2019 Applicant :- Satish Singh And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 17.06.2019 in Complaint Case No. 3223 of 2019 (Maheshwar Singh Vs. Satish Singh and others), under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rajepur, District - Farrukhabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Farrukahbad. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that complaint case is false. Entire family members have been implicated in this matter. One complaint had already been filed against the opposite party no. 2. It appears improbable and unbelievable that ten persons will enter in the house of the opposite party no. 2 and will cause marpeet but no visible injury will be received by the opposite party no. 2. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.
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.
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.
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.
Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 2.8.2019//Sanjeet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learning magistrate committed any illegality or infirmity by summoning the applicants.
Whether the impugned summons order should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish Singh
State Of U.P.
Om Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
