Dismissed

Jeevan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2022A482/3961/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order in Sessions Case No. 1464 of 2017, finding no illegality and that the trial court had properly applied his mind while considering the allegations under IPC Sections 323, 353, 504, and 506.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order was dismissed.

Jeevan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3961 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jeevan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA, for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of present application, the applicant has made a prayer to quash the order dated 8.10.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in Complaint Case No. 1464 of 2017, under Section 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kowali Orai, District Jalaun as well as the entire proceedings of case pending against the applicants.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially trial court dismissed the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and later on when opposite party no.2 challenged the order dated 24.5.2019, rejecting complaint of opposite party no.2, before the Sessions Court then Lower Revisional Court on 1.10.2019, set aside the the order dated 24.5.2019 and remitted the matter to the trial court with direction to take decision afresh on the basis of observations made by him and thereafter trial court, without applying any mind, on 8.10.2021 in a routine manner, merely on the basis of observations made by the Lower Revisional Court, summoned the applicant in the present case, therefore, summoning order dated 8.10.2021 and the entire proceedings pending against the applicant are bad in law and the same be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that perusal of the impugned order dated 8.10.2021 clearly shows that while passing the order, learned court below had applied its mind and after considering the facts of the case as well as observations made by the Lower Revisional Court summoned the applicant under Section 323, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. and there is no illegality in the summoning order dated 8.10.2021.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶10

The impugned order dated 8.10.2021 is well reasoned one and from its perusal, it clearly shows that while passing the order, the learned court below had observed the fact of the case that there is specific allegation against the applicants that they tried to outrage the modesty of the victim and after analyzing the entire facts as well as order dated 8.10.2021, trial court passed the summoning order. As prima facie , case under Section 323, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants, I find no illegality in the impugned order.

¶11

Therefore, the present applicant is devoid of merits and is, hereby , dismissed .

¶12

After passing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the applicant prays that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another , Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5191 of 2021 decided on 07.10.2021, a direction may be issued to the court below to consider the bail application(s) of the applicants. Although, there is no need to issue separate direction in this regard, but under the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed that when the applicants appear or brought before him and apply for bail, their bail application(s) shall be decided in view of the observations and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of S.K. Antil (supra) .

¶13

Order Date :- 19.5.2022 CS/-

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.05.23 16:19:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jeevan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevan and 2 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajak Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Rab Vs Jai Prakash and Others

Rajesh Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Preetam Singh Pradhan Vs State of U.P. and Another