Disposed

Shobha and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2019A482/29788/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a prima facie case existed. It directed the subordinate courts to consider the applicants' bail application expeditiously if they surrender within 30 days, allowing them coercive action-free status during that period.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused;Direction for expedient disposal of bail application if applicants surrender within 30 days;No coercive action allowed in that period.

Shobha and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29788 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shobha And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Singh,Kamal Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

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. 850 of 2017 (Deenanath Yadav Vs. Shobha and others), under Sections 323, 452, 504 IPC, Police Station Rasara, District Ballia arising out of summoning order dated 6.9.2018 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,-Ist, Ballia. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

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

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that one N.C.R. had already been lodged against the opposite party no. 2 and others. Present complaint was filed after a gap of about ten months i.e. after taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted in the N.C.R. showing the same date of offence as disclosed inthe N.C.R.

¶8

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.

¶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 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Shobha and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha and 3 Ors. 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

Ruksana and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Kanchan Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Sumit @ Lallu Pal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganesh Harijan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Vijay Verma and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fariyad Ansari and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another