Disposed

Achhey Lal and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2022/2792/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning orders. Observing that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage, the Court recorded an undertaking by the applicant not to press the impugned order and directed them to approach the trial court for discharge.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to move a discharge application before the trial court.

Achhey Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2792 of 2013

¶3

Applicant :- Achhey Lal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 30.06.2012 and order dated 09.01.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Hardoi, by means of which the petitioners have been summoned in complaint Case No.1184/2012, under Section 379, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station - Sandi, District - Hardoi.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present complaint was filed by the complainant as a counter blast as the Petitioner No.2 lodged NCR No.213/2011 under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against the complainant for an incident of assault on 25.09.2022. It is further submitted that the complaint case was filed on 11.10.2011 for an incident alleged to be occurred on 27.09.2011. It is further submitted that when the present petition was filed the Petitioner No.1 was about 66 years of age and Petitioner No.2 was about 65 years of age and right now the Petitioner No.1 would be about 74 years of age and Petitioner No.2 is about 73 years of age. It is further submitted that the whole family has been implicated in the present case.

¶7

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that it an undisputed fact that there is enmity between the parties. The summoning order has been issued after the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and from perusal of the complaint and the statements, prima facie, the offence is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that these disputed questions of fact which could be adjudicated only after adducing the 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.

¶8

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is found that all the submissions made at the bar related to the disputed questions of fact, cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only, prima facie , case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press this petitioner and he wants to move a discharge application before the Trial court, on which learned A.G.A. has no objection.

¶10

In view of above, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move a discharge application before the court concerned and the same may be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶11

Order Date :- 11.3.2022 S. Kumar

¶12

Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.14 11:48:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Achhey Lal and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achhey Lal and Another 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

Kashi Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Radheshyam Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home and Anr.

Sangram Singh @ Sangram Verma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Kant Singh and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Smt. Phoolmati and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Zeba and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.