Dismissed

Sughar Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2020A482/66/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of criminal proceedings. It directed that if applicants surrender within 30 days, their bail will be considered, and no coercive action shall be taken during this period.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of quash application; 30-day window for surrender and bail consideration; stay on coercive action if applicants surrender within 30 days.

Sughar Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 66 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sughar Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Tomar,Subhash Gosain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.

¶6

The applicants, Sughar Singh, Balvant Singh, Ochhe Lal, Smt. Rinki and Smt. Chhoti, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the Complaint Case No. 996 of 2013 (Smt. Saumya Vs. Sughar Singh and Others), under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC in respect of applicant No.1, and under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC in respect of applicant Nos.1 to 5, Police Station- Rampura, District- Jalaunn.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that it is a false accusation under abuse process of law with general accusation levelled against applicants. No such occurrence ever took place but owing to enmity this false accusation was got lodged, wherein impugned summoning order has been passed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

From the very perusal, it is apparent that Smt. Saumya @ Shobha, had filed complaint with this accusation that on 20.10.2013 at about 5:00 p.m., while complainant was inside her room and her husband was out of home, Sughar Singh, came there and he outrage her modesty, upon rescue call her daughter-in-law Smt. Pooja, rushed there, thereafter Sudhar Singh, ran from the spot. Complainant went to lodged the complaint. Subsequently, Sughar Singh and his wife, Balwant Singh and Ochhe Lal, followed with Rinki and Smt. Chhoti, did criminal trace-pass in the house of complainant and assaulted her and abused her. This fact has been reiterated in the Statement recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., it is with further corroboration by statement recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, at the time of passing of summoning order

¶10

under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not to make meticulous analysis of fact and evidence available on record, rather, a prima facie case is to be seen as to whether there is existence of elements considering offence for proceeding in the case and in this case there was sufficient prima facie case for proceeding by application of its judicial mind, wherein accused Sudhar Singh, has only summoned under Section 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and rest of accused, namely, Balwant, Ochhe Lal, Smt. Rinki and Smt. Chhoti, have been summoned under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶11

Accordingly, the order of Magistrate is on the basis of evidence available on record.

¶12

This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not to embark factual matrix.

¶13

With the above, the present application is dismissed .

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands dismissed accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.1.2020 S.K.

Sughar Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sughar Singh 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

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Lilawati Vs State of U.P. and. 6 Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jahid Husain Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Raghuveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.