Dismissed

Ram Kishan and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2019A482/31200/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and a summoning order arising from allegations under IPC sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 was dismissed because a prima facie case was found to exist. A direction for statutory leniency and suspension of coercive action for 30 days was issued upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; direction to consider bail and restrain coercive action for 30 days upon surrender.

Ram Kishan and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31200 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Kishan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2579 of 2017 (Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Arjun and others) under section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC related to police station Alapur, District Budaun initiated in pursuance of the impugned summoning order dated 15.10.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Budaun.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 Ram Kishan had lodged an NCR on 13.1.2013 against four accused persons including husband and son of O.P. No. 2. In that case the I.O. submitted charge-sheet under section 323, 324, 325, 504 IPC. Only to make pressure upon the applicants the O.P. No. 2 had lodged an FIR on 22.11.2014 against the applicants. In that case the I.O. submitted final report. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 2 filed a protest petition, thereafter, on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants have been summoned to face the trial. In fact, no such incident has taken place. No offence is made out against the applicants. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the summoning order is based on the statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order dated 15.10.2018 and there is no ground to quash the proceeding of the aforementioned case.

¶9

A perusal of the record shows that O.P. No. 2 in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. has stated that at the time of alleged incident the applicants entered into her house, hurled languages and committed marpit with her and due to marpit her

¶10

pregnancy of 7 months was mis-carriaged. It has further been stated that this incident was seen by the witnesses Morkali, Latoori, Lalaram and Pappu and others. In support of her contention the O.P. No. 2 has also examined Morkali and Latoori under section 202 Cr.P.C.. They have also supported the complaint version. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face trial under section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. I do no find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. The learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The disputed defence of the accused can not be considered at this stage.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case including summoning order dated 15.10.2018, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.10.2019 Masarrat

Ram Kishan and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishan and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telak Dharee Vs State

Manmohan Vs State of U.P.

Islam Vs State of U.P.

Gangesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Pramod Kumar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Rinku Vs State of U.P.and Another