Single judge quashed summons order under Section 482 CrPC finding prima facie case established against applicant for assault, rejecting plea of false implication but conditionally granting bail consideration before trial court.
Prayer for quashing of summoning order refused; bail application consideration directed pending surrender.
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.
Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39821 of 2022
Applicant :- Satyaveer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Ratan Bhushan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 13.05.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Court No.2, Aligarh in Criminal Complaint Case No. 368 of 2021 (Suman Devi Vs. Sri Satyaveer Singh and Others) under Sections 452, 323 IPC Police Station Dehligate, District Aligarh.
As per the allegations made in the complaint as well as statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it is alleged that on 05.07.2021, the applicants forcibly entered in the house of the victim and assaulted her and her daughter and tried to commit indecent act with her.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that allegations made in the complaint are false, cooked up and concocted made just with an intention to drag the applicant in criminal court and as such, impugned summoning order be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, impugned summoning order cannot be quashed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the allegations made in the complaint as well as statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 200 & 202 CrPC, prima facie offence is clearly
made out against the applicant.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order and entire proceedings is refused.
However in case, the applicant appears/ surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within three weeks from today, his bail application be considered and decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, after hearing both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 6.1.2023 Subham
Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning order under Sections 32 IPC/452 IPC should be quashed on the ground of false implication?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶13
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalExplained¶13
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaExplained¶13
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqExplained¶13
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶14
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satyaveer Singh
State of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
