Dismissed

Amit Shrama and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jun 2023A482/18327/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court refused to quash the summoning order in a criminal complaint for offences under the IPC. The court directed that if applicants filed bail within three weeks, the application would be disposed of expeditiously and no coercive action would be taken in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the summoning order refused; no coercive action for three weeks; bail applications to be disposed expeditiously if filed.

Amit Shrama and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126664

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18327 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Shrama And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by learned Second Judicial Magistrate, Basti, District Basti in complaint case no. 23651 of 20221(Smt. Pramila Devi Vs. Kusum Sharma and others), under Section 323, 504, 506, 379 IPC, P.S. Rudahouli, District Basti.

¶8

It is submitted that a complaint was filed by opposite party no.2, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 379 IPC, P.S. Rudahouli, District Basti. After recording the preliminary evidence, applicants have been summoned to face trial. It is submitted that no cognizable case is made out against the applicants. The complainant has filed the aforesaid complaint with a view to harass the applicants. No such incident has ever took place as alleged by the complainant.

¶9

Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the summoning order has been passed after considering the evidence available on record, therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the available record, the prayer to quash the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by learned Second Judicial Magistrate, Basti, District Basti in complaint case no. 23651 of 20221(Smt. Pramila Devi Vs. Kusum Sharma and others), under Section 323, 504, 506, 379 IPC, P.S. Rudahouli, District Basti, is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that in case the applicants apply for bail within a period of three weeks from today, their applications for

¶12

bail shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

¶13

For a period of three weeks no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for their appearance before the court below.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.6.2023 PS

¶15

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Shrama and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Shrama 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bambaiya@ Ganga Dayal Vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Ali Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sheela Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Sonu Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another