Dismissed

Vineet Mahajan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2019A482/31443/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court quashed the present Section 482 application as no prima facie case for quashing was made out. However, the court granted a direction for expeditious disposal of a bail application within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash dismissed. Direction given for expeditious disposal of bail application if applicants surrender within 30 days.

Vineet Mahajan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31443 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vineet Mahajan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kandarp Srivastava,Kaustubh Srivastava 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. 252 of 2015, under Sections 323, 342 IPC, Police Station Sadar, District - Agra arising out of summoning order dated 15.9.2016 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Agra. 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 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 applicants. General allegations have been made in the complaint. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

¶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 :- 14.10.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Vineet Mahajan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Mahajan and Another 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

Mohd. Rizwan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudesh Chand Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Abdul Mattalib Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Alim Vs State of Up and Another