Dismissed

Rajendra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2019A482/9161/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed the summons order dated 1.12.2018 in an IPC 392 case filed by the applicant. The Court held that the issue of enmity and malicious prosecution was not applicable at this stage and dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., while directing the trial court to consider law regarding bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of summoning order refused and application dismissed.

Rajendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9161 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for applicants and learned AGA for Staterespondents.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 1.12.2018 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-III / Special Judge (DAA), Budaun in S.S.T. No. 2712 of 2018, under Section 392 I.P.C., P.S. Islamnagar, District Budaun as well as subsequent proceeding thereof.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for applicants is that from the allegation of complaint and statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., no offence against applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Applicants have falsely been implicated in the case. They are innocent, there is no credible evidence and the entire proceedings are on account of enmity. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

It is stated that there are several documents which show that complaint has been filed maliciously but admittedly these documents were not before Magistrate and this Court while considering correctness of order passed by Magistrate summoning accused, will examine only that material which was available before Magistrate when he passed order. At this stage, this Court cannot examine any new material for the first time.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and

¶10

looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court 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 the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.

¶11

I do not see any good ground so as to justify interfere in the matter and prayer is refused.

¶12

However, Trial Court is expected, while considering their bail, to bear in mind, established law by Hon'ble Apex Court and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.

¶13

In view thereof, application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.3.2019 Manoj

Rajendra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaypal Singh @ Manjhale Vs State of U.P.

Nandlal Vs State of U.P.

Lal Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Aditya Saroj and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarjeet and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman Vs State of U.P.