Partly allowed

Ghanshyamdas Sahu and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 May 2019A482/8596/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, finding the complaints well-founded and not a misuse of process. However, to settle the dispute amicably, the court adjourned coercive action for three weeks, allowing parties to negotiate.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action stayed for three weeks pending negotiation; application for quashment refused.

Ghanshyamdas Sahu and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8596 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ghanshyamdas Sahu And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Jeet Singh,Ran Jeet Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1594 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., Police StationKotwali, District- Jhansi including summoning order dated 20.07.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

¶8

Contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that the allegations made in the complaint and statement are mischievous and the court below has failed to appreciate the proper facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. The summoning order (20.07.2018) is illegal and not sustainable and entire proceeding is in abuse of process of the Court.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashment of the summoning order and submitted that the summoning order is just and legal which requires no inference by this Court.

¶10

Upon perusal of the averments made in the accompanying affidavit and upon consideration of document annexed therewith, obviously it cannot be said that the proceeding initiated against the applicants is in sheer misuse of the process of

¶11

the Court. The documents placed on record carry substantive allegations which have been backed up by sufficient material for drawing the proceeding against the applicants. Therefore, the prayer of quashment of the summoning order and proceeding is refused.

¶12

However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case applicants appear before the court concerned within a period of three weeks' from today and move application for redressal of their grievance, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law without incurring any further delay.

¶13

For a period of three weeks' from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

It is made clear that in the event no such application for redressal of their grievance is moved within the time prescribed above, this order will be of no avail to the applicants.

¶15

In the meanwhile, the parties shall explore the possibility of negotiation before the court below.

¶16

With the above direction, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.5.2019

¶18

Raj

Ghanshyamdas Sahu and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyamdas Sahu and Anr. 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

Ashok Kumar Goyal Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.

Gaffar Khan Vs State of Up and Another

Navi Ahamad Kha Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Nagma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another