Dismissed

Aman Veer Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2020A482/4870/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applicant sought quashing of proceedings under IPC sections 452, 323, 504 alleging false prosecution over property dispute. Court found prima facie case, refused to quash summons or warrants, but granted 30-day respite for surrender of applicant in jail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; 30 days granted for applicant in jail to surrender for bail application.

Aman Veer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4870 of 2020 Applicant :- Aman Veer Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.

¶4

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

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of complaint case no. 409 / 2017, E.Pha No. 107 /2017, Sharandeep Kaur Vs. Aman Veer Singh and another, police station Bilaspur, District Rampur, pending in the court of C.J.M. Rampur and summoning order dated 23.5.2017 as well as non bailable warrants dated 24.9.2019, 1.11.2019 and 5.12.2019 passed by C.J.M. Rampur under section 452, 323 and 504 I.P.C. police station Bilaspur District Rampur.

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants no such incident has taken place. There is property dispute in between both the family regarding the partition of movable and immovable property. In result of which the opp. party no. 2 falsely lodged the present case. It has further been submitted that the proceedings under section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated against both the parties. The opp. party no. 2 in her complaint has not disclosed the fact that the applicants were trying to set the tractor of the opp. party no. 2 on fire. The opp. party no. 2 in her statement has stated that the applicants were setting the tractor of the opp. party no. 2 on fire. There is material contradiction in the statements of complainant recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that no offence is made out against the applicants. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. argued that the applicants have been summoned to face trial under section 452, 323 and 504 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face trial. Due to non presence of the applicants, non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants. There is no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order and there is no ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case.

¶8

A perusal of record shows that the opp. party no. 2 moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as complaint and on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., applicants have been summoned to face trial. A copy of F.I.R. has also been filed on behalf of the applicants with a supplementary affidavit which shows that the opp. party no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R. on 28.1.2017 against the

¶9

applicants and five others for committing murder of the sister of the opp. party no. 2. In complaint the opp. party no. 2 has made allegation against the applicants for committing marpit with her and also stated that the applicants also snatched the golden chain from her. The summoning order is based on the statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. I find no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order dated 23.5.2017. 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.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the entire proceedings, summoning order as well as order of non bailable of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that the applicant no. 1 is in jail in other case.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicant no. 2 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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 U.P.

¶13

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant no. 2 surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against her.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 25.2.2020/Gss

Aman Veer Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Veer Singh 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

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arif Gudda and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manoj Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satpal Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another