Disposed

Sajjan Yadav and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2019A482/34195/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against applicants under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 427, 504, and 506 IPC. The court held that a prima facie case existed. However, it ordered surrender and bail application consideration within 30 days, suspending coercive action temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Application refused. Directed applicants to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days; no coercive action during this period.

Sajjan Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34195 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sajjan Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar Singh,Anil Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

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. 1120 of 2015 (Rajendra Yadav Vs. Sajjan Yadav and others), under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Suhwal, District - Ghazipur arising out of summoning order dated 5.11.2015 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 27.9.2019

¶14

Sachdeva

Sajjan Yadav and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan Yadav and 4 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farhan Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalattar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shweta Sachan @ Shweta Chung Vs State of U.P. and Another

Natthu Singh Sengar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Ajay Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kishan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othes