Dismissed

Lalit Kumar and 04 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2019A482/9219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the preliminary proceedings of a criminal complaint, the High Court held that no interference was warranted as the offence was made out and facts could not be adjudicated at this stage. The application was dismissed, with a direction to the Trial Court to consider bail laws strictly.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to set aside proceedings is refused; Trial Court directed to consider bail application in accordance with Apex Court law.

Lalit Kumar and 04 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9219 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Lalit Kumar And 04 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Sisodia

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned AGA for State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1406 of 2018, (Monika versus Lalit and others), under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate / Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.3, District Bijnor.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for applicants is that no offence against applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. It is further contend that summoning order has been issued against the applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 but by mistake the present application has been filed by all the persons whose names are mentioned in the compliant as opposite parties.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer.

¶10

From the perusal of the material available on record and looking into the facts of the case, it appears that learned Magistrate, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. find sufficient ground for proceeding and prima-facie case against accused-applicants, passed summoning order.

¶11

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 question of fact and appreciation of evidence, 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

¶12

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 am not inclined to interfere in the matter and prayer is refused.

¶14

However, Trial Court is directed, while considering their bail, to bear in mind, law established 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.

¶15

In view thereof, application is disposed of. Order Date :- 15.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Lalit Kumar and 04 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar and 04 Others 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

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

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