Dismissed

Raj Kumari @ Gudia and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2021A482/8729/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order. The applicant argued for quashing charges and proceedings based on a prior order protecting applicant no. 1 from coercive action, but the court held the current application misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; proceedings continue.

Raj Kumari @ Gudia and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8729 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumari @ Gudia And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging Summoning Order dated 17.01.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Senior Division) Auraiya in Case No. 34 of 2018 (State Vs. Shekhar) under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District-Auraiya, now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Senior Division) Auraiya.

¶8

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has opposed present application. Learned A.G.A. contends that applicants earlier approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9777 of 2018 (Shekhar and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein this Court on 30.03.2018 passed following order:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned chargesheet as well as the entire proceeding of case no. 34 of 2018, case crime no. 18 of 2017, U/s 498A, 323, 504 IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Mahila thana, District Auraiya pending before the concerned court below.

¶11

As far as applicant no. 1 is concerned, the following order is being passed:

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant no. 1 and learned AGA,

¶13

this application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his 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. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicant no. 1 surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no. 1. However, in case, the applicant no. 1 does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶14

As far as applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, the following order is being passed:

¶15

Issue notice to respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week.

¶16

Counter affidavit to be filed within four weeks by the learned A.G.A. as well as respondent no. 2 and rejoinder affidavit to be filed within three weeks thereafter.

¶17

List thereafter before the appropriate Court. Assignment, if any, stands discharged.

¶18

Until further orders of this Court, no coercive action shall be taken as against applicant nos. 2 to 6 in aforesaid case. "

¶19

Learned A.G.A. further contends that pursuant to above order one of the co-accused has appeared before court below and he has been enlarged on bail. As such court below has proceeded with the trial and summoned present applicants also. There is no recital in order dated 30.03.2018 regarding stay of proceedings of trial court. Court below has thus not committed any illegality or perversity in proceeding with the trial. Interest of applicants already stands protected vide order dated 30.03.2018. He therefore submits that present application is misconceived and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed by this Court.

¶20

When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.

¶21

In view of above, present application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶22

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.9.2021 YK

Raj Kumari @ Gudia and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumari @ Gudia 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

Diwakar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Aneeta Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shiwani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shameem Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another