Dismissed

Amarjeet Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2021A482/10778/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the plea that a subsequent criminal complaint was mala fide and illegal following an earlier rejection of a police report application. The Court held that a Section 156(3) rejection does not preclude a Section 190 complaint and remanded the case for expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; Case remanded for expedited trial; Bail to be considered expeditiously if applicants appear before the court below.

Amarjeet Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10778 of 2006

¶3

Applicant :- Amarjeet Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Hitesh Pachauri

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prem Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶6

Sri Hitesh Pachauri, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is not present even in the revised call.

¶7

By way of filing present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 230 of 2006 (Smt. Preet Kaur Vs. Amarjeet Singh and others) pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 12th, Agra and further to quash the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 38, Agra passed in complaint dated 27.3.2006 filed by the opposite party No. 2 registered as case No. 230 of 2006 under Section 323, 498A, 504 and 506 IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that on 2.3.2006 opposite party No. 2 moved an application in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected on 23.3.2006 and later on, just after three days i.e. on 27.3.2006, on same facts a fake complaint has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 12th Agra against the applicant with malafide intentions and learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind summoned the applicants vide order dated 20.4.2006 under Section 323, 498A, 504 and 506 IPC, therefore, the complaint dated 27.3.2006 as well as impugned summoning order dated 20.4.2006 both are illegal and learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind wrongly summoned the applicants in the instant matter. Applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 have already separated through mutual agreement well before the impugned complaint.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA contended that in paragraph no.2 of the impugned complaint dated 27.3.2006, opposite party no. 2 specifically stated that applicant No. 1, the husband by playing

¶10

fraud took signature on plain stamp paper, therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 has already divorced her even before filing the impugned complaint is unsustainable.

¶11

I have given thoughtful consideration on the rival contentions and perused the record of the matter. Merely rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not bar subsequent filing of criminal complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and as impugned complaint dated 27.03.2006 prima facie discloses cognizable offences, therefore, it cannot be said that summoning order dated 20.06.2006 passed by learned trial court is illegal. All the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants can only be properly addressed during trial and not at this stage.

¶12

In view thereof, I find no force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and, therefore, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶14

However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if applicants appear before the concerned court below, then their bail application shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶15

It is further directed that as the matter is of the year 2006 and about one and a half decade have already been passed, therefore, learned trial court shall make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings of the case as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.11.2021 Ankita

Amarjeet Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjeet Singh and 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalta Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hamid Ali and Tohers Vs State of U.P. and Another

S.R. Agarwal @ Dr. Sant Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulam Moinuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kunwar Pal Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Gupta and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another