Dismissed

Lal Mohd. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2019A482/34252/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. application filed to quash criminal proceedings under 376 and 506 IPC. High Court declined to interfere, finding prima facie case exists. Court directed bail disposal within 30 days of surrender and stayed coercive action for that period.

What did the court decide?

Application for quash refused; direction issued for bail disposal within 30 days of surrender; no coercive action for 30 days.

Lal Mohd. Vs State of U.P. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34252 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Lal Mohd. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

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.3837 of 2018 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Bidhuna, District - Auraiya pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya as well as summoning order dated 15.3.2019 passed by the court concerned. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

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

¶7

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 Section is not made out against the applicant. 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 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.

¶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 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.

¶12

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

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.9.2019 ss

Lal Mohd. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Mohd. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avadhesh Samadhiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kumari Renu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Prabha and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Mohd. Amir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Singh and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vijendra Alias Dehati Vs State of U.P. and Anr.