The Allahabad High Court rejected the applicant's prayer to quash summons under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding allegations discognizable offences. The Court refused to issue bail directions, relying on Apex Court guidelines.
Prayer to quash summoning order and consequential proceedings rejected; no specific directions issued regarding bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:127469
Court No. - 46
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22630 of 2023
Applicant :- Indrasen And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Pandey,Rajeev Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 86 of 2019 (Jayanti Vs. Chandasen and others) under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (d) and (dh) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur, pending before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jaunpur and also to quash the summoning order dated 03.01.2023 passed in the aforesaid case.
On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof the summoning order has been passed against the applicants.
This Court in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the evidence, the prayer to quash the summoning order and the consequential proceeding is rejected.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.
As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021 ) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing
consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 20.6.2023 S.Ali
Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashin the proceedings and summoning order can be allowed.
Whether any specific directions regarding bail need be issued to the concerned court despite pending arrest proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶11
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Indrasen And 6 Others
State of U.P.
Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
