Disposed

Amar Singh @ Jagdesh Husband v. the State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019A482/2954/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash Magistrate summoning order in matrimonial complaint dismissed. Court directed applicant to surrender for bail within 60 days without coercion during this period. Application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing dismissed. Direction issued for expeditious bail consideration upon surrender within 60 days; no coercive action allowed during this period.

Amar Singh @ Jagdesh Husband Vs the State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2954 of 2016 Applicant :- Amar Singh @ Jagdesh Husband Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

Mediation was not successful.

¶4

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba as well as entire proceedings as well as of Complaint Case No. 1295 of 2015 (Smt. Preti @ Pinki Vs. Amar Singh @ Jagdesh and another), under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Panwari, District - Mahoba pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the applicant. General allegations have been made in the complaint. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

¶7

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.

¶8

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 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 60 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 60 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶11

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

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Sanjeet

Amar Singh @ Jagdesh Husband v. the State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh @ Jagdesh Husband v. the State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Manju and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Atik and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Vinod Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dr.v.K. Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others