High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order taking cognizance. While refusing interference, the court granted a two-month moratorium on coercive action and allowed consideration of bail if applicants surrender.
Application refused; no coercive action for two months if applicants surrender.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3890 of 2019 Applicant :- Masoom And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Saini Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 31.1.2019.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to set aside order dated 28.8.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV, Saharanpur and stay further proceedings of the Case No.5020 of 2018(State vs. Masoom & others) under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV, District Saharanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that impugned order passed is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence.
Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned order is passed after considering whole evidence on record and is just and legal.
From perusal of record, it transpires that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the applicants.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case 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. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.
However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender and apply for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) . For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 31.1.2019/P.P.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the order taking cognizance under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 IPC.
Whether to suspend coercive action pending surrender by the applicants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Masoom And 3 Others
State Of U.P.
Another
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
