Dismissed

Ashok @ Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jun 2020A482/10702/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of frivolous FIR and summoning order, the High Court held that disputed facts prevent quashing and refused the prayer, directing no coercive action if applicants appear and surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; no coercive action if applicants appear and apply for bail within 30 days.

Ashok @ Ashok Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10702 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok @ Ashok Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of criminal complaint case no.345 of 2018 (Smt. Sarita vs. Hariom and others) u/s 498A IPC & 4 D.P. Act, police station Bilsi, district Budaun, pending in the court of ACJM-II, Budaun and also quash the impugned summoning order dated 18.10.2019, passed in the aforesaid case.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicants are the Jeth and Jethani of opposite party no.2 and are living separately since 2013 much before the marriage of opposite party no.2 with Hariom (husband). He further submits that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicants by contending that applicants have opportunity to file discharge application before the court concerned and the disputed question can be decided by the trial court.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants are free to take all the submission by moving discharge application before the trial court. Accordingly, the matter of quashing the complaint is not made out. Therefore, the prayer of the applicants is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application,

¶12

whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.6.2020

¶15

m.a.

Ashok @ Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok @ Ashok Kumar 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

Shripal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Leena Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Udaivir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Murshid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krapal Singh Yadav @ Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another