A bail application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings was dismissed as no prima facie case was made out. The court directed surrender within 30 days for bail consideration.
Quashing application refused; direction issued for surrender within 30 days for bail consideration.
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. - 29549 of 2019
Applicant :- Surendra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 4177594 of 2017 (Smt. Guddi Devi Vs. Surendra and others), under Sections 452, 354, 394, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of summoning order dated 8.6.2018 pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate VII, Kanpur Nagar. 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.
Submission of the leanred counsel for the applicants is that present complaint was filed in counterblast with malafide intention showing the same date of offence as disclosed in the N.C.R. lodged on behalf of the applicant no. 4 against the husband of the opposite party no. 2. 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 primafacie 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 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2019
Sachdeva
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the summoning order based on whether a prima facie case exists.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra And 4 Others
State Of U.P. And Another
Om Prakash-VII
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
