The High Court refused to quash a summoning order and entire proceedings in a criminal case involving allegations of theft and criminal intimidation, noting the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order and entire proceedings was refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8866 of 2016
Applicant :- Abdul Hameed And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Shamim Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Waseem
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 1.7.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bahedi, Bareilly and order dated 4.3.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Bareilly passed in Criminal Revision No. 321 of 2016 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 309 of 2014 (Masoom Ahmad Vs. Abdul Hameed and others) under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Deoraniya, District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that opposite party No. 2 (Masoom Ahmad) has stated in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., that on 2.11.2013 at 2:00 PM, applicants came to his residence and took away Rs. 40,000/- and ornaments with them. Applicant No. 4 (Shahzad Begam) is wife of opposite party No. 2 (Masoom Ahmad). There is no allegation of assault by the applicants to any family members of opposite party No. 2 (Masoom Ahmad). Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.
Alternative remedy under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., is available to the applicants to get themselves discharge from the court concerned.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, if applicants apply for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided by the trial court on merit by a speaking order.
Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants.
Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of .
Order Date :- 15.5.2019 Jaswant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the summoning order and entire criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Hameed
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
