Partly allowed

Shiv Shankar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2019A482/39258/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust, the court found no infirmity in the summoning order. No prima facie case was established to justify interference. The prayer to quash was refused, but a direction for expeditious bail consideration was issued if the applicants surrender within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash refused. Surrender within 30 days entitles bail consideration; coercive action stayed for 30 days.

Shiv Shankar and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39258 of 2019 Applicant :- Shiv Shankar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶4

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 26 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420 IPC as well as the summoning order dated 19.3.2019 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Kanpur Dehat. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶5

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

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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 from the material available on record it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, to adjudicate/ decide the pleas raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required, which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶9

In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicants be given.

¶10

Hence, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶11

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

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.11.2019/safi

Shiv Shankar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shankar and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Rajiv Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anang Pal Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Das Shrangrishi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madho @ Madhav Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Sadhana Samadhiya and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Gangaram and Another Vs State of Up and Anr.