Court rejected application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. finding a prima facie case existed. Ordered no coercive action for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.
Prayer for quashing refused. No coercive action for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5569 of 2020 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 19.12.2019 as well as entire proceedings registered in its pursuance as criminal complaint case no. 3082 of 2018, Smt. Updesh Vs.Manoj Kumar and others, under sections 452, 354, 323 and 504 I.P.C. police station Eka District Firozabad, pending in court of learned A.C.J.M., Firozabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that prior to this complaint, the wife of the applicant no. 4 and mother of applicant nos. 1 and 2 namely, Smt. Sarala Devi moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 22.10.2018 against the husband of opp. party no. 2 and 3 others. In counterblast the opp. party no. 2 filed the complaint on 26.10.2018 only for the purpose of harassment. No such incident has taken place.
The real fact is that the opp. party no. 2 and other co-accused entered into the house of the applicant no. 4 and committed marpit with the daughter-in-law of the applicant no. 4 namely, Kushlesh and also committed marpit with wife of applicant no. 4 and minor daughter Km. Shivani. Only to save herself and other co-accused, the opp. party no. 2 filed false and frivolous complaint. The applicant no. 3 is an old man aged about 74 years and the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 4 were in Delhi with regard to earn their livelihood. No offence is made out against the applicants. There is no injury report on record to support the complaint version. The impugned proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and same are maliciously instituted by complainant / opp. party no. 2 against the applicants with a view to spite them due to some private and personal grudges.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the opp. party no. 2 in her complaint has made allegation for committing marpit against the applicants and allegation of molestation has also been made against the applicants. The plea of alibi cannot be
considered at this stage. After evidence, it can be determined whether the applicants were present or not at the time of alleged incident. At this stage only prima facie case has to be seen and from the material available on record it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
A perusal of record shows that the opp. party no. 2 in her complaint has made allegation for committing marpit against the applicants and she has also made allegation of molestation against the applicants. The opp. party no. 2 in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. has supported the complaint version and she has examined Rajesh Kumar and Amarpal in support of her complaint version under section 202 Cr.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 under sections 452, 354, 323 and 504 I.P.C. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order. 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 19.12.2019 as well as entire proceedings of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
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 U.P.
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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020/Gss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for quashing of the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be allowed.
Whether a prima facie case is made out against the applicants in the matrimonial dispute involving allegations of molestation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Kumar
State of U.P.
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
