Dismissed

Abhishek Rastogi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023/3303/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) rejected an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a summoning order dated 06.02.2023 by the Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. (A.P.), Lucknow. The court found no illegality in the order based on the complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Present application under Section 482 CrPC is rejected.

Abhishek Rastogi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47561

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3303 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Abhishek Rastogi And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shesh Mani Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S Malik E Ashtar Rizvi

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Kumar Lakshay and Syed Mohd. Fazle Haider Zaidi, Advocates on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for private respondent as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 06.02.2023 by A.C.J.M., C.B.I. (A.P.), Lucknow in Complaint Case No.1417 of 2019 U/s 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Thakurganj, Lucknow and also dismissed the Complaint Case No.1417 of 2019 pending in the court of A.C.J.M., C.B.I. (A.P.), Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the basis of incorrect facts, FIR in question was lodged by private respondent. He further submitted that marriage of applicant no.4 was solemnised with son of opposite party no.2 on 07.02.2019 and she was ousted from her matrimonial home. He further submitted that, thereafter, only with the intention to make pressure on applicant no.4 as well as her family members, complaint was filed and private respondent was also advising his son not to live with applicant no.4. He further submitted that witnesses were relatives of private respondent, the trial court failed to consider all these facts and issued summoning orders, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶10

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for private respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that trial court passed the order considering the contents of complaint as well as statement recorded U/s 200 and 202 CrPC. Learned AGA submitted that offence of applicants cannot be examined by this Court at this stage, therefore, present application is liable to be rejected.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and going through the contents of application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the statement recorded U/s 200 & 202 CrPC and from the impugned order passed by trial court after considering the statement of witness recorded U/s 200 & 202 CrPC that there is no illegality in the impugned summoning order, therefore, the present application is misconceived.

¶12

In view of aforesaid observations, the present application U/s 482 CrPC is rejected .

¶13

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Arpan

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhishek Rastogi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Rastogi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. 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

Rais Alam and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Smt.Durga and 8 Ors. Vs State of U.P.and Another.

Shailendra Arak @ Shailendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajan Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ramakant Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kaushalendra Singh Yadav @ Guddu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another