Dismissed

Satpal Saini and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2019CRLA/6436/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking quashing of a summoning order under CrPC in a criminal case alleging caste-based abuse and assault. The court held that a prima facie case was made out, refusing the quashing prayer but granting liberty to apply for bail upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summons dismissed; liberty to apply for bail upon surrender granted.

Satpal Saini and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6436 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Satpal Saini And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.07.2019 and entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.09 of 2019 (Ganja Charan Vs. Satpal and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mandi Dhanaura, District Amroha.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that on 25.02.2019 at about 4:00 PM, the appellants abused the victim with the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him and and also assaulted him by kicks and fists.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the victim has not suffered any injury on his person.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the appellants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the appellants and as such, impugned summoning order cannot be quashed.

¶11

Moreover, at this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma,

¶12

1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the summoning order and entire criminal proceedings is therefore refused.

¶14

However, it is directed that if the appellants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, this criminal appeal is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.10.2019 Nadim

Satpal Saini and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Saini and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siya Ram Vs State of U.P.

Chanchal Kashyap and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jograj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Yusuf @ Eesuf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipul Rai and Another Vs State of Up and Another