Dismissed

Pankaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2022A482/10171/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and a summoning order. It held the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence supported by statements. Bail directions were declined as Apex Court guidelines suffice.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing proceedings and summoning order dismissed. Bail prayer left for lower court to consider.

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

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10171 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Ravat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 766 of 2017 (Smt. Meera Vs. Pankaj) under Sections 452, 504, 506 I.P.c. Police Station Kailia, District Jalaun pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Konch, District Jalaun as well as to quash the summoning order dated 15.11.2018 passed in the aforesaid case.

¶7

On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof the summoning order has been passed against the applicants.

¶8

At this Court, in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the evidence, the prayer to quash the summoning order and the consequential proceeding is rejected.

¶9

At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicant and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicant by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.

¶10

As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.5.2022 S.Ali

¶13

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.05.05 17:39:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj 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

Sandeep and 4 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Dharmendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Chand Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sachin Badera Alias Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Taukeer Alias Kallu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilshad Vs State of U.P. and Another