Single Judge Court refused quashing of summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding genuineness is for trial court. Ordered coercive action barred for 21 days if applicants surrender and move bail.
Prayer for quashing refused; coercive action stayed for 21 days subject to bail application.
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. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27343 of 2021
Applicant :- Abdul Rahama And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kukmar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 10.09.2021 in Complaint Case No.109 of 2021 (Parveen Begam v. Abdul Rahman & Ors.), under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Nigohi, DistrictShahjahanpur, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.28, Shahjahanpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that on 15.10.2020 at 07:00 p.m., the applicants entered in the house of opposite party no.2 with the intention to kill her. It is also alleged in the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the applicants abused her in filthy language, assaulted her, outraged her modesty and also took the money from the house. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that one Sajida Begum lodged F.I.R. against Risaldar, Pappu (husband of opposite party no.2), Mohit and Taufiq in Case Crime No.0066 of 2020 on 18.11.2020 regarding occurrence dated 12.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m. under Sections 308, 323 and 504 IPC. It is further submitted that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case with the mala fide intentions as the husband of opposite party no.2 was also implicated in the F.I.R. lodged by Sajida Begum.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the application and stated that genuineness of the complaint cannot be adjudicated in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The genuineness of the complaint can only be adjudicated after appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at this stage as it is the domain of the trial court.
I have gone through the file.
The genuineness of the complaint cannot be adjudicated without appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at the stage of 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 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.L.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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
Keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2020 SCC Online SC 850 , I do not find any cogent reason to interfere, therefore, the aforesaid prayer for quashing of the summoning order is, hereby, refused.
However, it is directed that if the accused-applicants surrender before the court below and move bail application within 21 days from today, the court below shall decide the bail application according to the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.
For a period of 21 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.4.2022 Jyotsana
Digitally signed by JYOTSANA SINGH Date: 2022.04.19 17:33:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any ground to quash the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. KapurReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.L.R. 1960 S.C. 866
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶11
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical WorksReferred¶11
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Neeharika InfrastructureApplied¶12
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2020 SCC Online SC 850 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar AntilReferred¶13
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Rahama And 5 Others
State of U.P.
Mohd. Aslam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
