Partly allowed

Ashwini Yadav @ Ashwani Kumar Yadav @ Deepu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2019A482/28159/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Hon'ble Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash of a criminal complaint, finding no case made out for interference due to the existence of a prima facie case. The Court directed the applicant to surrender and apply for bail within thirty days to ensure expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. refused; direction issued to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days for expeditious disposal.

Ashwini Yadav @ Ashwani Kumar Yadav @ Deepu Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28159 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ashwini Yadav @ Ashwani Kumar Yadav @ Deepu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 26328 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Dixit Vs. Shivani Chauhan and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 379 IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar and orders dated 10.10.2018 & 05.03.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that summoning order passed in the matter is illegal. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present matter. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the contents of the complaint as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and also the observation recorded by the concerned Magistrate in the summoning order and argued that present complaint was filed in counter-blast with mala fide intention. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on other documents filed in the matter and argued that Shivani Chauhan lodged one FIR for the offence under Section 376 IPC against one Vinod Kumar Sahu. Opposite party no. 2 was causing hindrance in recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., applicant helped her and due to that reason, present complaint was filed in counter-blast with mala fide intention.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer.

¶9

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

¶10

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 applicant. 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 applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

¶12

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant 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 applicant.

¶13

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶14

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.8.2019 Sanjeet

Ashwini Yadav @ Ashwani Kumar Yadav @ Deepu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini Yadav @ Ashwani Kumar Yadav @ Deepu 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

Sheo Prasad Singh and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Mujammil and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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