Dismissed

Kamlesh Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2019A482/28105/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J. rejected the prayer to quash a summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court found no infirmity in the order summoning the accused for alleged offences under IPC and S.C./S.T. Act, noting the trial court acted solely on investigation evidence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing summoning order refused; 30 days time granted to move for bail.

Kamlesh Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28105 of 2019

¶2

Applicant :- Kamlesh Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Chandra Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 26.2.2019 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, (Court No. 2)/Special Judge, s.C./S.T. Act, Mahoba, District Mahoba in Final Report No. 61 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2018, under Section 452, 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, 1860 and 3(2) (5), 3(1) Da, 3(1) Gha, S.C. & S.T. Act, 1989, P.S. Panwari, District Mahoba and all consequential proceedings and further to stay further proceedings of the impugned summoning order dated 26.2.2019.

¶6

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that prosecutrix/victim/ first informant was lady of a bad character with whom niece of accused-applicant. 1 was having friendship, as they used to go together for study, which was being opposed by the accused-applicant and in this regard a quarrel had taken place between the two sides, regarding which proceedings under Section 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the police. After this quarrel, compromise has been arrived at between the parties but subsequently the opposite party no. 2/victim has moved an application under Section 156(3) to lodge the case against the accused-applicant on totally false allegations, which were investigated into by the police and final report was submitted. It was mentioned in the said report that the opposite party no. 2 had falsely implicated the accused applicant because of the earlier above mentioned animosity. Against the said final report, the protest petition was filed by the opposite party no. 2, whereon the trial court has taken cognizance against the accused-applicant under the above mentioned sections only on the basis of evidence of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. ignoring statement of the niece of the accused-applicant, who was a friend of the victim, who had not supported the prosecution version, therefore, the impugned order needs to be quashed.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing the summoning order.

¶8

I have gone through the impugned order. The trial court has recorded in the said order that the I.O. had ignored the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C,. and also the statement of one Mohan Lal, (whose statement is not found annexed), which was against the accused-applicant and has submitted final report only on the basis of statements of persons, who were close to the accused including her niece Kr. Roshni and on the basis of evidence on record, which was gathered by the Investigating Officer, the accused had been summoned under the above mentioned sections, which appears to have ben done under Section 191 (1) (b) of the Cr.P.C. There is no separate evidence recorded by the trial court treating the protest petition as a complaint. Cognizance has been taken by the trial court solely on the basis of evidence which has been gathered by the Investigation Officer.

¶9

In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned summoning order. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.

¶10

However, accused applicant is provided 30 days time to appear before trial court and seek bail, if such an application is moved before it within the said time period, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law. Till 30 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the accused-applicant, but if applicant does not move application within 30 days, the court shall take coercive action.

¶11

With the above direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 22.7.2019/A.P. Pandey

Kamlesh Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Awasthi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Zuber and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babbu Mishra Alias Suresh Chandra Mishra Vs State of Up and Another

Siddheshwar Banerjee and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Laxmina Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Another

Vijay Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another