Disposed

Neeraj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2020A482/167/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning orders in a criminal case, holding that factual inquiries belong to the trial court. The application was disposed of but applicants were granted 30 days to surrender for bail consideration without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the application; 30-day period granted for surrender and bail application consideration pending disposal; no coercive action during this period.

Neeraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 167 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

The applicants namely, Neeraj, Raju, Vittu and Sonu, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer to quash the order dated 02.08.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Atrauli, Aligarh as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1214 of 2018 (Tillu Vs. Neeraj and others), under Sections392, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Atrauli, DistrictAligarh, pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Atrauli, Aligarh.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that before this complaint, a case crime number was got registered against complainant side upon the report of applicant side. As a counter blast, this false and malicious case was got lodged, wherein, impugned summoning order for offences, as above has been passed, under abuse and misuse of process of law. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.

¶9

From the perusal of previously instituted case crime number, it is apparent that present occurrence is not one and common, rather, it is different than that one and it has been said that there had been enmity in between. Hence, this subsequent occurrence could be a false and malicious occurrence or cause or effect of previous occurrence, but either ways it is a question of fact, to be seen during trial by Magistrate. This complaint was filed, for an occurrence occurred on 29.9.2018, at about 3:00 P.M., when complainant Tillu, was all alone at his home and accused persons, who are residence of same village, did criminal trespass, they did assault, abuse and robbery, which was protested and this complaint was got filed for same. Magistrate took cognizance, decided to proceeding as complaint case, wherein, complainant- Tillu, was examined under Section 200

¶10

of Cr.P.C. Narration of complaint is with full reiteration in the statement recorded under Section 200 and corroboration by statement recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Magistrate, by application of judicial mind, passed impugned order of summoning as above. It was not misuse of process of law.

¶11

This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon the factual aspects. Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal.

¶12

Dismissed , accordingly.

¶13

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty (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.

¶14

For a period of thirty (30) days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below, within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.1.2020 Kamarjahan

Neeraj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Yadav and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rita Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veerpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Prasad Budhia and Another Vs State of U.P. and Andther

Pragati Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Andther

Rajani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others