Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2020A482/78/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CJM Court dismissed a Section 482 application seeking quashing of a summoning order. The court held disputed facts fall within the magistrate's domain. However, for the interest of justice, bail shall be considered if applicants surrender and apply within 30 days; otherwise, coercive action will be taken.

What did the court decide?

Bail consideration permitted if applicants surrender and apply within 30 days; no coercive action in the interim.

Ramesh and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 78 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ramesh And 6 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahar Lal Maurya 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, Ramesh, Vinay Ganga Prasad, Satyam and Shivam, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 19.10.2019, passed by CJM, Kaushambi, in complaint case No. 2337 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 354 of IPC, Police StationManjahpur, District- Kaushambi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that husband of O.P. No.2, had filed a civil suit but could not be successful for having injunction order in his favour. Thenafter, this false and concocted prosecution was got lodged by complainant- O.P. No.2, wherein applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are minor but court has passed the impugned summoning order. Hence, this application with above prayer.

¶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 of complaint, it is apparent that it was said in it that on alleged date, time and place accused persons did criminal trace-pass and abuse with extension of threat to complainant. Ramesh and Vinay did outrage the modesty of her and it was very well said in the statement recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of it, by way of application of its judicial mind, impugned summoning order was there and the applicants Ramesh and Vinay had been summoned for offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 354 of IPC and Ganga, Satyam and Shivam, have been summoned for offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. Prima facie, there was sufficient evidence for passing the above summoning order. Magistrate need not to make meticulous analysis of fact and evidence. At the stage, of

¶10

passing of summoning order under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., rather, a prima facie case is to be seen and it was very well there.

¶11

This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not to embark upon factual matrix because the same is within the domain of Magistrate regarding juvenile and under this plea may be raised at any time before any court and it is to be raised before the Magistrate concern. Magistrate will proceed against those, who claiming minors after their determination of juvenility. Accordingly, this application merits, its dismissal with the above observation.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands dismissed accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.1.2020 S.K.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

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