Dismissed

Ravi Saini v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2019A482/8737/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Special Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refused to quash a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vowing active participation in rape under the S.C./S.T. Act. The court held that terms are disputed facts not for this court to decide and granted a 30-day reprieve from coercive action.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the order is refused, but coercive action is stayed for 30 days if the applicant appears and applies for bail.

Ravi Saini Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8737 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Saini Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2/Special Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No. 8 of 2017 (State Vs. Dharmendra Saini) arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2016 under Section 376-D I.P.C. and 3(2)(5-A) of S.C. /S.T. Act, P.S. Rehar, District Bijnor pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnor.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no reasoned order was passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that learned Magistrate has not considered the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also contended that in F.I.R. as well as in 164 Cr.P.C. statement, there is no allegation regarding rape. It is also contended that victim has never stated about her rape in her statement before the trial court. He further submitted that learned trial court has summoned the applicant under Section 376-D I.P.C. and 3(2)(5-A) of S.C. /S.T. Act by exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. But no offence under Section 376-D I.P.C. and 3(2)(5-A) of S.C. /S.T. Act is made out against the applicant.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that applicant named in F.I.R. He further contended that PW-1 has clearly stated in her statement that applicant has taken active participation in this incident.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials brought on record. It cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. It does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be

¶10

adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the aforesaid impugned order, is refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that in case, applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation/directions, the application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 28.3.2019 Vibha Singh

Ravi Saini v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Saini v. State of Up 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

Gaj Ram Vs State of U.P. and Others

Samayding and Others Vs State of U.P.

Kunwar Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.and Others

Rakesh Kr. Singh Vs State U.P.

Amar Nath Singh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Kumar and 02 Others Vs State of Up and Another