The court rejected the quashing application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. as allegations disclosed a cognizable offence supported by section 200/202 statements. Bail guidance referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Satendra Kumar Antil.
Prayer to quash summoning order and consequential proceedings rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12105 of 2022
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 117 of 2019 (Prema Devi Vs. Ajay Kumar and others), P.S. Line Bazar, District Jaunpur along with summoning order dated 14.1.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Jaunpur, under sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
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.
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.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.
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.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022
RPD
Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.07.11 15:51:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for quashing of proceedings and summoning order under S. 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed.
Whether directions should be issued to the trial court regarding the bail prayer of the applicants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBIReferred¶10
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Kumar
Others
State of U.P.
Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
