Disposed

Ganesh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2019A482/40473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It directed expedited disposal of bail and discharge applications.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings refused. Directions for expedited disposal of bail and discharge applications; no coercive action during specified periods.

Ganesh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40473 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Ganesh And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 19.11.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Jhansi as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 39 of 2016 (Smt. Nandini Vs. Ganesh and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jhansi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant No. 2 (Ashok Kumar Verma) and applicant No. 3 (Smt. Uma Devi).

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A., opposed the prayer made and submissions thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶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.

¶10

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if applicants apply for bail, the same shall be disposed of on the same day, on which they are taken into custody as per the guidelines prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1501 .

¶13

It is further provided that in case, the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 claim discharge through counsel under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below, expeditiously by a speaking order.

¶14

Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant Nos. 2 and 3.

¶15

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicant No. 1 surrenders and applies for bail, whichever, is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶16

This application stands disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 8.5.2019 Jaswant

Ganesh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh and 2 Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Dhupa Devi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhan Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Jagannath Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nilay Kumar Pandey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Geeta Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another