Disposed

Ritu Raj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2019A482/31403/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings arising from Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC. Court found no prima-facie case interfering with magistrate's order. Stay granted to surrender for bail within 30 days; no coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Application refused; direction given to surrender within 30 days with no coercive action during this period.

Ritu Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31403 of 2019 Applicant :- Ritu Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohit Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 11091 of 2017 under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of summoning order dated 4.7.2019 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Moradabad. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶5

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the applicant. General allegations have been made in the complaint. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

¶6

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA has submitted that applicant has 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.

¶7

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 prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, to decide / adjudicate the plea raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required, which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶8

In the last, learned counsel urged for a direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicant.

¶9

Hence, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶10

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned.

¶11

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.9.2019/safi

Ritu Raj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritu Raj 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

Kameshwar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Kaushal Kishore and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Umesh Alias Dulley and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shaym Sunder Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramashankar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others