Dismissed

Pusai @ Raj Kumar and 3 Others v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2019A482/36815/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summons and revision order. Found prima facie case made out against applicants. Directed non-coercive measures for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. 30-day reprieve from coercive action conditioned on surrender and bail application.

Pusai @ Raj Kumar and 3 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case : - APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36815 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pusai @ Raj Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party : - State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant : - Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party : - G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 15.03.2019 under sections 452 and 323 IPC in complaint case no. 4351 of 2018 (Smt. Archana Vs. Pusai and others) passed by A.C.J.M. First, Basti and quashing the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by Sessions Judge Basti in Criminal Revison No.115 of 2019 (Pusai and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as quashing the further proceeding of the complaint case.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that there is civil dispute in between the parties. Applicant no.1 filed a civil suit no.1066 of 2018 against the husband of opposite party no.2 and others which is still pending and an N.C.R under sections 323 and 504 IPC was lodged by applicant no.1 against the husband of opposite party no.2 and others. In that case the charge sheet was submitted by the investigating officer against opposite party no.2 and others. In counter-blast, the present prosecution has been instituted by opposite party no.2. In fact no such incident has taken place. False story has been concocted by opposite no.2. There is no medical report on record to support the complaint version. The summoning order dated 15.03.2019 is not in accordance with law. The applicants have preferred criminal revision against the summoning order dated 15.03.2019, which was dismissed by the learned lower revisional court vide order dated 03.09.2019. The judgement of lower revisional court is not in accordance with law. No offence is made out against the applicants.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the summoning order has been passed on the basis of the statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face the trial under sections 452 and 323 IPC. Learned revisional court has also not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. At this stage, only a prima facie has to be seen and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. There is no ground to quash the proceeding of aforementioned case, as well as the order of lower revisional court dated 03.09.2019.

¶9

A perusal of the record shows that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statement of complainant and witnesses recorded under

¶10

sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In complaint, it has been mentioned on 15.08.2018 at about 7.00 A.M., daughter of opposite party no.2 was taking bath and neighbour Sumit was making video on his mobile. At this, opposite party no.2 opposed to do so and due to which the applicants reached at the house of opposite party no.2 and hurled abuses and also committed marpit with her with kicks and fists. This incident was seen by the witnesses. The opposite party no.2 in support of her complaint version has examined herself under section 200 Cr.P.C. and she also produced Gita, whose statement has been recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C

¶11

The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face trial under sections 452 and 323 IPC. I do no find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. A criminal revision was also preferred by the applicants against the summoning order which was dismissed by the lower revisional court. The lower revisional court has not found any illegality or irregularities in the impuned summoning order. Learned magistrate dealing with the 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 applicants. The disputed defence of the accused can not be considered at this stage.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 15.03.2019 as well as order of learned lower revisional court dated 03.09.2019 and proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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 judgement 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 5.11.2019

¶16

PKC

Pusai @ Raj Kumar and 3 Others v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pusai @ Raj Kumar and 3 Others v. State of Up 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

Ramjee Yadav @ Guddu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Dhanpat Vs State

Ajeet Kumar and Another Vs State of Up and Anr.

Ajay Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Shrivas Vs State of U.P.