Dismissed

Shyambihari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2022A482/3346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order in a cross-case. The court held that the main case and cross-case must be tried together by the same court, finding no substance in the application for interference.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order is dismissed.

Shyambihari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3346 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shyambihari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kukmar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.10.2021 in Misc. Case No. 119 of 2018 (Smt. Tejvati vs. Shyambihari and others) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Shahjahanpur.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that Kunnu, husband of opposite party no.2, and three others had committed murder of the father of applicant no.3 regarding which F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 253 of 2014, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504 I.P.C. was lodged on 30.03.2014 at 20:15 P.M. for the incident dated 30.03.2014 at 17:45 P.M. against them in which after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons and trial of aforesaid is going on. In order to harass and pressurize the applicants, the present cross-case has been lodged under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against the applicants wherein police has submitted final report and later on learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants on the basis of police report to face trial. Therefore, the summoning order is liable to be set-aside.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed that the application and submitted that the case in question is not lodged in counterblast but it is a cross-case, therefore, the proceedings of cross-case cannot be quashed. It is further submitted that cross-case shall be tried by the same court. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that this is a cross-case and the main case and cross-case shall be tried together, I do not find any substance in the application which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 8.4.2022

¶12

Vikas

¶13

Digitally signed by VIKAS VERMA Date: 2022.04.13 11:26:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyambihari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyambihari and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajvar Vs State of U.P and 7 Others

Ganga Ram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Savitri Devi and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Natthi Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bachcha Lal Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another