Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2020A482/4892/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to quash a summoning order finding a prima facie case of rape and other offences. The court held that no illegality existed and refused dismissal while directing consideration of bail if applicants surrender within 20 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of summoning order refused; bail to be considered if applicants surrender within 20 days.

Om Veer and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4892 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Om Veer And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 summoning order dated 9.8.2019 passed by 3rd Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Budaun passed in Complaint Case No. 42 of 2019 (Poonam Vs. Omveer and others) under section 392, 354, 376, 511 IPC, P.S. Wazeerganj, District Budaun.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 had lodged an FIR on 9.10.2017 under section 354, 504 IPC and 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act against Raju, brother of O.P. No. 2 on 23.9.2018. In counter blast the O.P. No. 2 has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the applicants only for the purpose of harassment and to make pressure upon the applicants. No such incident has taken place. False story has been concocted by O.P. No. 2. The summoning order dated 9.8.2019 is not in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that in complaint Indrajeet has been shown as witness of alleged occurrence but he has not been examined. No offence is made out against the applicants.

¶8

On the other hand; learned A.G.A. argued that the summoning order is based on statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In complaint it has been mentioned that on 13.2.2019 at about 1:00 p.m. the applicants dragged the O.P. No. 2 in a mustered field. They also snatched her golden chain and committed marpit with O.P. No. 2 with rod and knife and also tried to commit rape upon her. In support of her complaint version the O.P. No. 2 has examined Banwari and Satyapal under section 202 Cr.P.C. In their statements the above witnesses have also supported the complaint version. The court below after finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face the trial. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order and there is no ground to quash the summoning order passed in the aforementioned case.

¶9

A perusal of the record shows that the applicants have been summoned to face the trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In complaint it has been mentioned that at the time of alleged occurrence the applicants tried to commit rape upon her and also snatched her golden chain and committed marpit with her. The learned court below after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face the trial under section 392, 354, 376, 511 IPC. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. The learned court below dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The disputed defence of the accused can not be considered at this stage.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 9.8.2019 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 20 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Masarrat

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Veer 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

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

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

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