Dismissed

Sanjay @ Sanju and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2020A482/952/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash summons and NBW orders regarding theft and assault allegations, the Court dismissed the petition. However, it directed that no coercive action be taken against the applicants for thirty days if they surrender and apply for bail, citing relevant precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no coercive action for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Sanjay @ Sanju and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 952 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay @ Sanju And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar 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, Sanjay @ Sanju, Pinki and Kushuma Devi, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 27.08.2015, and NBW order dated 21.10.2019, passed by CJM, Kansganj in Case No. 84 of 2014 (Phulwari Vs. Sanjay And Others), under Sections 452, 392 of IPC P.S. Gandundwara District- Kanganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that it was a proceeding under abuse process of law. No offence was over committed or was made out. Even then impugned summoning order has been passed. 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 perusal of complaint it is apparent that it was narrated that complainant along with his wife was residing at Aligarh, where he was involved in job of labourer. O.P. No.2- Smt. Sushila Devi, was of bad character and she entered in affairs with many persons. Subsequently, son of complainant was murdered but owing to future of grandson, no action was taken, rather Pinki, was taken at her home. Subsequently, she by a telephonically call on 16.10.2014 summoned her brother (Sanjay) and mother (Kushuma Devi), who took ornaments and cash of Rs. 10,000/- by theft. This was protested, she was assaulted by them. This fact was narrated in the statement recorded under Section 200 as well as Section 202 of Cr.P.C., and on the basis of it Sanjay @ Sanju, Pinki, Kushuma Devi and Hariom, were summoned for offence punishable under Section 452 and 392 of IPC. Hence, there was prima facie sufficient material of passing impugned order, hence, for relief

¶10

prayed, the present proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands dismissed accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.1.2020 S.K.

Sanjay @ Sanju and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay @ Sanju and 2 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 Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Gajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sultan Kushwaha and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pappu Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another