Dismissed

Nitin Kumar Sharma and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022A482/23023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the application to quash the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that a prima facie case was made out. Court directed consideration of bail applications two months from the date upon surrender and allowed a period of two months to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order refused. Applicants observed to surrender within two months and apply for bail; no coercive action during that period.

Nitin Kumar Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23023 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin Kumar Sharma And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Reena Pal,Adarsh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akanksha Gaur

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 14.6.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, District Bulandshahr in case no. 157 of 2020 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pahasu, District - Bulandshahr pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, District Bulandshahr. Further prayer has been made to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the applicants. General allegations have been made in the complaint. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for complainant submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. and other documentary evidence. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and from the material available on record it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, to adjudicate/ decide the pleas raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required,

¶10

which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶11

It is also notable that against the summoning order the aggrieved party may prefer criminal revision before the Sessions Court but the applicants have preferred to approach this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

¶12

In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicants be given.

¶13

Hence, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.

¶15

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 11.11.2022

¶17

safi

¶18

Digitally signed by MAHBOOB SAFI Date: 2022.11.12 10:52:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nitin Kumar Sharma and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kumar Sharma and 4 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aarif Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Singh Parmar Vs State of U.P.

Lala Rajpoot@ Raghvendra Vs State of U.P.

Murari Lal Kushwaha @ Raj Kamal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Javed Vs State of U.P. and Another