Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2022A482/8928/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order and criminal proceedings. The court held that the complaint prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, rendering the defence of false allegations irrelevant at this stage.

What did the court decide?

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

Shahvej and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8928 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shahvej And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Narayan Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.K. Shukla holding brief of Sri Om Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

By way of filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants prays for quashing the summoning order dated 7.12.2021 passed by ACJM-II, Saharanpur in compliant case No. 1148 of 2021 under sections 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Janakpuri, District Saharanpur as well as quashing the entire proceeding of aforesaid case, pending in the court of ACJM-II, Saharanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party no. 2 on 16.2.2021 which was treated as a complaint and thereafter, statement of opposite party no. 2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, applicants have been summoned in the present case. He further submitted that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C./complaint has been filed on the basis of false and frivolous facts and in fact, on 16.2.2021 from the side of opposite party no. 2, an assault was made upon the applicants side and in this regard, NCR was lodged from the applicant's side, which was later on, converted into a cognizance report and after investigation, charge sheet was also submitted against the husband of opposite party no. 2 and her brother-in-laws, therefore, the impugned complaint filed against the applicants is counterblast and without perusing the material on record, in routine manner, court below issued summons against the applicants.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned AGA submitted that the complaint dated 16.2.2021, prima facie, discloses cognizable offences against the applicants and in the incident, two brother-in-laws (devars) of opposite party No. 2 sustained injuries and further if a NCR was lodged earlier on 12.2.2021 against the opposite side then on that basis, it cannot be said that allegation made in the complaint is false and frivolous. They further submitted that there is no illegality

¶9

in the impugned summoning order, therefore, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

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

¶11

Perusal of the case shows that on 16.2.2021, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants which was treated by court below as complaint and thereafter, in complaint case applicants were summoned. Perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is later on treated as complaint and statement of opposite party no. 2 and her witness under section 202 Cr.P.C. shows that a, prima facie, cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that earlier on 12.2.2021 FIR lodged from his side against opposite party no. 2 and only due to that reason, after four days, opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., cannot be appreciated at this stage. As, prima facie, impugned complaint discloses cognizance against the applicants and defence taken by applicants cannot be appreciated at this stage, therefore, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 16.7.2022 Ankita

¶13

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.20 19:23:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahvej 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shambhu Tiwari and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Udayveer Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faiz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar @ Ramu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others