Disposed

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2022/1224/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for quashing criminal proceedings. The court granted liberty to the applicants to file a bail application in the trial court, which would be decided expediently based on the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil versus CBI.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a bail application in the trial court within fifteen days; bail application to be decided expeditiously.

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1224 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Mishra,Suresh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants and learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1 of 2020, under Section 452, 323, 354 (b), 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act relating to Police Station - Poora Kalandar, District - Faizabad/Ayodhya, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act- 1st, Faizabad as well as impugned summoning order dated 14.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act- 1st, Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has submitted they have been falsely been implicated in the present case, as they have lodged an F.I.R. dated 14.6.2018 against the son of the respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that within 10 days of lodging F.I.R. against the son of the respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 on 23.6.2018 filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and in pursuance of the order passed by this Court an F.I.R. was lodged on 26.9.2018. Police after investigation has submitted the final report on 18.10.2018 stating therein that the charges are false and frivolous. Against the final report the protest application was filed by the respondent no. 2 on 18.5.2019 on which an order has been passed on 10.12.2019 and accepted the complaint as a complaint case. It is further submitted that while passing the summoning order the learned trial court has not considered the final report submitted by the police.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants requires adducing of an evidence for determination of the dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that the summoning order has been passed after recording of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. where averments made in the complaint is found to be intact and such an issue

¶9

cannot be decided without adducing evidence. Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submits that he does not want to press the petition and seeks liberty to file bail application before the learned trial court which may be decided in view of law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2021 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another .

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties', it is provided that in case, the petitioners/applicants appear before the trial court within fifteen days' from today and file bail application, the same shall be decided expeditiously in view of law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (supra) .

¶13

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.3.2022 Anuj Singh

¶15

Digitally signed by ANUJ PRATAP SINGH Date: 2022.03.16 13:38:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Mohd. Naseem and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Dept. of Home and Another

Devi Gharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Ji Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and 3 Others

Mahboob Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Manoj Verma and Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another