Single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash a summoning order. The court held no infirmity existed in the order and directed expeditious disposal of the bail application.
Application under Section 482 CrPC refused; costs awarded to State. Bail application reserved for disposal within 30 days of surrender.
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. - 29303 of 2019 Applicant :- Vijay Verma And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shrawan Kumar Tripathi 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 13.03.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Court No. 12, Basti in Complaint Case No. 1553 of 2018 (Smt. Anuradha Chaudhary Vs. Vijay Sharma and others), under Sections 323, 356, 504, 506(2) IPC, Police Station Harraiya, District - Basti. 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 summoning order passed in the matter is illegal. Complaint is not supported by the medical evidence. On the day of sending information to the S.S.P. concerned itself, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved. No such incident as alleged in the complaint ever took place. Concerned Magistrate while passing the summoning order did not apply judicial mind. 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 :- 22.8.2019 Sanjeet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summoning order in the complaints case suffers from illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether a prima facie case is established against the applicants requiring lead of evidence.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Verma And 2 Ors
Om Prakash-VII
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
