Dismissed

Durgpal and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2019A482/45003/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants sought to quash proceedings initiated against them in a complaint case alleging assault and other offences. The court rejected the application, observing that claims of counter blast could not be determined at this stage. The order sympathetically noted that bail could be considered if applicants surrendered within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the summoning order rejected.

Durgpal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45003 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Durgpal And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been given in Complaint Case No. 812 of 2017: Babli Vs. Durgpal & others in which, the applicants have been summoned by order dated 26.11.2018 under sections 452, 325, 354 IPC, P.S. Pilua, District Etah, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah.

¶7

By this application, learned counsel for the applicants has requested to quash the entire proceedings initiated pursuant to impugned summoning order and to set aside the summoning order.

¶8

It appears from the documents attached that an application was given by the opposite party no. 2 under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. making allegation against the applicants that on the date of incident i.e. 05.11.2017 in the morning when she was working inside her house and her husband and other family members were out in their field, the applicants carrying lathi, danda in their hands entered into house and started abusing her and committed marpeet with her due to which, she fell down and they tried to sexually abuse her. She any how escaped by interference of witnesses. She suffered injuries and tried to lodge an FIR, but the same was not lodged. She again sent an application to the S.S.P., but it did not bring any result. The eyes of her Buffalo were also damaged by the applicants.

¶9

On the basis of application, the learned trial court directed to register the same as a complaint and process it as a complaint case. The complainant was examined under section 200 Cr.P.C. and she supported the version of complaint. The witnesses, P.W.1- Sheela @ Susheela Devi, P.W. 2-Bhumiraj and P.W.3Rupa Devi @ Varsha Devi were examined who also supported the complaint allegation.

¶10

The learned trial court on the basis of evidence on record

¶11

summoned the applicants for the offence under sections 452, 325, 354 IPC. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that nose bone was found fractured in the x-ray.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that prior to this incident, he had lodged an FIR against opposite party no. 2 and after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against opposite party no. 2 for the offence under section 323, 324, 325 IPC, hence as a counter blast, the opposite party no. 2 initiated these proceedings.

¶13

The fact that the proceedings initiated by opposite party no. 2 is a counter blast or false, it cannot be determined at this stage as the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of summoning on the basis of evidence on record.

¶14

As such, I find no force in this application. The application is accordingly rejected.

¶15

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that in case, the applicants surrender and apply for bail within thirty days from today before the court below, the same shall be considered and decided by the court below sympathetically and expeditiously preferably on the same day in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.12.2019 RCT/-

Durgpal and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgpal and 6 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Kishan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hari Narayan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

P. Jethro and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Naresh Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Chandra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another