Dismissed

Jitendra @ Jeetu @ Jitendra Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2019A482/36576/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of C.J. M., Agra dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning order and criminal proceedings, holding disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage. However, granted an extension of 30 days for avoidance of coercive action if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Extension of 30 days for applicants to surrender and apply for bail; coercive action suspended if they comply.

Jitendra @ Jeetu @ Jitendra Kumar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36576 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra @ Jeetu @ Jitendra Kumar And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Sri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel, has filed vakalatnama on behalf the opp. party no. 2 which is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.9.2017 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1489 of 2017 new case no. 4268 of 2019, under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sadar, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 2, Agra.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the summoning order as well as entire criminal proceedings of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused

¶11

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 19.10.2019

¶14

Gss

Jitendra @ Jeetu @ Jitendra Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra @ Jeetu @ Jitendra Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Haseen Vs State of U.P.

Kalyan Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Babu Shakywar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bhool and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another