Dismissed

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019A482/30537/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashal of criminal proceedings initiated by a police complaint, the High Court held that no prima facie case is made out for interference. The prayer was dismissed. However, the court directed that bail shall be considered expeditiously if applicants surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashal refused; direction for expeditious bail disposal if applicants surrender within 30 days.

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30537 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brajendra Kumar,Naresh Kumar Pal 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. 40 of 2019 (Avneesh Tripathi Vs. Anil Kumar and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Lavedi, District Etawah arising out of summoning order dated 30.5.2019 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Etawah. 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 present complaint was filed on the basis of false facts with malafide intention showing the same date of offence as disclosed by the applicants in the N.C.R. lodged on 28.2.2019.

¶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 :- 11.9.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and 2 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

Ram Avtar Bhar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Shyam Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sayeed Khan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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