Allowed

Ajay Kumar Singh Visen and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2020A482/719/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC quashing a Non Bailable Warrant in a matrimonial dispute, directed bail application within 30 days, and restrained coercive action temporarily, citing relevant apex court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Warrant to 30 days bail application before Trial Court, coercive action stayed; later coercive action permitted if bail application not filed.

Ajay Kumar Singh Visen and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 719 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Singh Visen And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shesh Narain Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Ajay Kumar Singh Visen, Raghvendra Pratap Singh Visen, Neelam Visen and Kamal Visen @ Lakhpata Visen, with a prayer for setting aside Non Bailable Warrant, issued vide order, dated 7.8.2019, by the Judicial Magistrate-I, court no.12, Basti, in Case No. 5408 of 2018, (Saroj Visen alias Gudiya vs. Ajay Kumar Singh and others), under Sections 395, 364 and 511 of IPC, Police StationPaikoliya, District-Basti, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, court no.12, Basti.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicants argued that the complaint, giving rise to this proceeding, was filed by the wife against husband-in-laws, arising out of matrimonial dispute. A proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being Application U/S No.8622 of 1985 (Ajay Kumar Singh visen and others vs. Sate of U.P., has been filed, wherein, order dated 13.8.1985 was passed and proceeding of criminal complaint case no. 286 of 1985 was stayed. Subsequently, in view of latest judgment of Apex Court and Circular Letter, issued by this Court, on administrative side, impugned order for issuing Non Bailable Warrant has been passed. Hence, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.

¶7

Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application with this contention that latest order, with reason for extending stay order, could not be filed before the court for which repeated opportunity was afforded.

¶8

Once, a summoning order was challenged in a proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., before this Court, wherein stay order was there and it could not be explained as to what fate and result

¶9

that Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., met, except that it is being argued that the same is not traceable, it is apparent that learned counsel for applicants is not in a position to tell about status of above proceeding, whether it has been dismissed on merit or otherwise or is still pending disposal. But, once a relief has been claimed in earlier proceeding, then, for the same relief another proceeding is not maintainable, but, arriving to this conclusion, fate and result of earlier proceeding is to be known. Further, the relief claimed is regarding issuance of Non Bailable Warrant because applicants could not produce any order, which could show that the stay order passed by this Court is still in operation, though repeated opportunities were given and the accused are not appearing before the court.

¶10

Therefore, impugned order issuing Non Bailable Warrant is legal and just, which does not require any interference from this Court. However, applicants may appear before the Trial court and make a prayer for bail.

¶11

On such a prayer being made by the applicants, by moving Bail Application, within thirty days from today, before the Trial court, concerned, 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.

¶12

For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶13

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

¶14

This Application stands disposed of Accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.1.2020/bgs/

Ajay Kumar Singh Visen and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Singh Visen and 3 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

Dhakan Lal and 4 Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Sunil Kumar @ Bhanwara and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Devanti Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Kuber and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shanu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another