Partly allowed

Hitendra Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2019A482/30917/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of matrimonial proceedings, holding prima facie case existed. However, Court directed lower court to expeditiously dispose of bail application if applicant surrenders within 30 days without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; direction issued for expeditious bail hearing upon surrender within 30 days.

Hitendra Kumar Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30917 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Hitendra Kumar Gaur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- K.K. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 5240 of 2018 u/s 495, 498A IPC PS Kakadev District Kanpur Nagar pending before the court of M.M.-9 Kanpur Nagar and also quash the summoning order dated 5.12.2018 passed by M.M.-2 Kanpur Nagar in the aforesaid case. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

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

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the ingredients of the offences and facts and evidence available on record and further argued that continuation of the proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case is abuse of process of law.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer with the contention that all the ingredients to constitute the said offence is made out. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

¶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. Perusal of the impugned order shows that vide impugned order only the applicant who is the husband has been summoned and the other family members have been exonerated. 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies 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 against the applicant. It is

¶12

made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned. It is also made clear that in case the applicant does not surrender before the court concerned within 30 days, this order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.8.2019 SP

Hitendra Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitendra Kumar Gaur 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

Santosh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Surijpal Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sayedan Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Neeraj Kumar Saini and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chandan Shukla @ Aryan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others