Disposed

Somesh Pathak and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2020A482/4810/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the application to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. Finding a prima facie case, it directed a 30-day suspension and mentioned terms of bail case law, leaving coercive action pending. The application was ultimately disposed of without quashing.

What did the court decide?

Application refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days if applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

Somesh Pathak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4810 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Somesh Pathak And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 13.12.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 3 Bareilly and 12.9.2017 passed by A.C.J. M. Court no. 3 Bareilly and entire proceeding of Case No. 46 of 2017 (Smt. Ramshree Vs. Sontosh Pathak & others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bareilly pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. III, Bareilly.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. No such incident has taken place. The offence under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC is not made out against the applicants. The summoning order dated 12.9.2017 is not in accordance with law. The applicants have preferred criminal Revision no. 414 of 2017 against the summoning order dated 12.9.2017 which was dismissed by the revisional court vide its order dated 13.12.2019 The order of the learned revisional court is also not in accordance with law. The applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case only for the purpose of harassment.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A argued that the applicants have been summoned to face the trial on the basis of statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record has summoned the applicants to face the trial under sectjions 323, 504, 506 IPC. The applicants have filed a criminal revision against the summoning order dated 12.9.2017 which was dismissed by the revisional court vide its order dated 13.12.2019. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below and there is no ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case.

¶9

A perusal of the record shows that the opposite party no. 2 had

¶10

filed a complaint against the applicants with the allegation that on 22.12.2016 at about 6-00 P.M. the applicants committed marpeet with the opposite party no. 2 and also threatened her. In support of her complaint the opposite party no. 2 herself examined under section 200 Cr.P.C and the statements of witnesses Smt. Baghyawati and Kamla Devi have been recorded as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. under section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record has summoned the applicants to face the trial. The applicants has preferred a criminal revision against the summoning order dated 12.9.2017 which was also dismissed by the revisional court vide its order dated 13.12.2019. The Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail 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 :- 7.2.2020/A.

Somesh Pathak and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somesh Pathak and 4 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

Pramod Kumari Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.

Rahmat Ali and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Anil Sahu @ Anil Kumar Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Nath and Anr. Vs Smt. Bhawana

Darshan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Veer and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another