Disposed

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

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2022/3489/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of complaint and summons proceedings. The court allowed the applicant liberty to file a bail application before the trial court, which would then be decided expeditiously in light of the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file bail application before the trial court, to be decided within ten days.

Shiv Kant Singh and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3489 of 2014 Applicant :- Shiv Kant Singh And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Mandeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶2

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶4

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 322 of 2014 initially it was registered as Case No. 830 of 2011 and the summoning order dated 18.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 15, Rai Bareli in Complaint Case No. 322 of 2014 under Section 354, 452, 323 and 504 of IPC, Police Station Sareni, District Rai Bareli.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a complaint case under Section 156 (3) has been filed on 13.06.2011 by respondent no. 2 Smt. Krishna Devi for an incident which was occurred on 05.06.2011. On the day of incident i.e. 05.06.2011, an FIR was also lodged by the brother in law (Jeth) of the respondent no. 2 and a cross FIR has also been lodged on the very same day by the petitioner no. 2. It is further submitted that for the same incident, a complaint case under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the proceedings in pursuance of FIR cannot be proceed simultaneously.

¶6

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the complaint case was filed by the respondent no. 2 whereas the FIR was lodged by one Shiv Nandan-brother-in-law (jeth) of the respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that there is no such bar that if an FIR has been lodged, a complaint case under Section 156 (3) can not be registered. In support thereof, he has relied on Section 210 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the alleged incident had occurred as there are cross FIR, injury report and the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C was before the trial court and after being prima-facie satisfied, the summons have been issued. It is further submitted that whether any such incident had ever occurred is to be determined only after adducing of evidence in the trial. It is further submitted that this is not a stage where

¶7

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

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶9

Learned AGA has no objection to the aforesaid prayer advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.3.2022/Ashish

¶13

Digitally signed by ASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.03.14 12:01:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

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

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