Dismissed

Raj Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2019A482/29392/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summons and revisional orders. Finding no illegality or infirmity and noting the prima facie case, the Court refused quashing but directed future bail consideration if applicants surrendered and applied within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the summoning order and revisional order refused. Direction to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration granted.

Raj Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29392 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 28.10.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Alilgarh in case no. 853 of 2014 under Sections 323, 354, 380, 452 IPC, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh and the order dated 30.4.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Aligarh in criminal revision no. 35 of 2018. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. One F.I.R had already been lodged on behalf of applicants side against the son of the complainant and other persons. Applicant no.1 had received serious injuries. It appears improbable and unbelievable that after receiving serious injuries, he would have committed alleged offences. It is further submitted that present complaint has been filed on the basis of false facts showing same date and time of offence as disclosed in the F.I.R. lodged on behalf of applicants. Revisional court also did not consider the facts and evidence in right perspective and dismissed the revision on insufficient grounds. It is also submitted that complaint proceeding has been started only to save the skin from the consequences of the F.I.R. lodged on behalf of applicants. The impugned orders suffer from illegality and infirmity.

¶9

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 orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Since it is a cross version, factual aspect raised in this application can best be decided after leading evidence by the trial court at appropriate stage.

¶10

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 orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and from the material available on record it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶11

Revisional court also considered the matter in detail and passed a reasoned order. Further, to adjudicate/ decide the pleas raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required, which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶12

In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicants be given.

¶13

Hence, it is observed 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.

¶14

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

¶15

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.9.2019

¶17

safi

Raj Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and 3 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

Mohd. Amir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Singh and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vijendra Alias Dehati Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gagan Singh and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Siya Ram Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Pramod Kumar Dwivedi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.