Dismissed

Yogendra Pratap @ Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2019A482/9176/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the applicant petitioned the High Court to quash proceedings under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC, alleging false implication and lack of prima facie case. The High Court held that the Magistrate did no illegality in issuing the summons and refused to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings and summoning order is dismissed with costs.

Yogendra Pratap @ Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9176 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Yogendra Pratap @ Sarvesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State-respondents.

¶6

Record reveals that case crime no.4661 of 2010, registered under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was investigated and final report was submitted by Investigating Officer and came to be accepted by the Magistrate concerned.

¶7

Vinod Kumar filed a complaint against Yogendra Kumar, under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Mainpuri and learned Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and making inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by recording statement of witnesses, namely, Jaswant and Sunita and found prima-facie evidence and sufficient ground for proceedings, summoned the accused (present applicant) for facing trial.

¶8

Accused / present applicant filed time barred criminal revision in the Court of District Judge, Mainpuri which was heard and dismissed on time barred by Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Mainpuri vide order dated 07.03.2018.

¶9

Both orders of Courts below are under challenge in this Court.

¶10

Learned Counsel for applicant submits that complainant filed an application against present applicant, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court concerned where upon case was registered and investigated by police. Investigating Officer finding no evidence, submitted final report which was accepted by the Court but Trial Court illegally, without application of proper mind, summoned the applicant by the impugned order. It is further contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case for the purpose of harassment. No prima-facie case is made out against applicant and present prosecution is sheer concoction and abuse of process of the Court. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that primafacie case is made out against the accused-applicant. Magistrate is only to see as to whether there are sufficient ground for proceedings, Magistrate has committed no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order and merit cannot be decided at the stage of 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Upon consideration of rival condition advanced by both parties and perusal of record available on file, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out, at this stage. At the time of passing summoning order, Court has only to see prima-facie case and sufficient ground for proceeding. Submission made at bar relates to fact and merit of case which cannot be adjudicated. 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.

¶13

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

¶14

Accordingly, application is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Yogendra Pratap @ Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Pratap @ Sarvesh Kumar 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

Bhola and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Charan Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit Kumar and 04 Others Vs State of Up and Another