Disposed

Awadhesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2019A482/4440/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the quashing of the summoning order and proceedings in a POCSO/FIR case. No recognized grounds for quashing were found. The court ordered the applicants to move for discharge within a month, restrained coercive measures for three months, and directed the lower court to independently decide the discharge application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of summoning order and proceedings refused; acc throughput application for discharge; no coercive measures for 3 months.

Awadhesh and 3 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4440 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Awadhesh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anshul Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State..

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 10.1.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of complaint case No. 25 of 2018, under Sections- 354 I.P.C. and Section 12 of the POCSO Act Police Station- Jafarganj, District- Fatehpur, pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence is made out against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.

¶8

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶9

As requested, the applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through their counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today.

¶10

No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants for a period of three months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

¶11

If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.

¶12

With the above observations, this application stands disposed of..

¶13

Order Date :- 1.2.2019

¶14

A. Pt. Singh

Awadhesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh and 3 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jag Roshan Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Satyavir Vs State of U.P.

Arshad Ali Vs State of U.P.

Santosh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.