Mohd. Arif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Holding that the appellants' grievance regarding the summoning order may be satisfied by directing them to move an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., with specific timelines and procedural safeguards imposed on the special court.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:119543
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3174 of 2023
Appellant :- Mohd. Arif And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken record.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants with the prayer to allow this appeal and set-aside the the impugned summoning order dated 15.2.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jalaun at Orai, in Complaint Case No. 88 of 2022 (Smt.Mamta Vs. Mohd. Arif & Ors.), under Sections- 354, 387,323,504,506 IPC and Sections 3(1) (da) )(dha) of SC/ST Act, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai.
Learned counsel for the appellants has raised many submissions while referring to the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Section 202 Cr.P.C. in order to project that the instant case is nothing but the counter blast of an F.I.R. which was lodged on a complaint made by appellant no.1 against opposite party no.2 to the District Magistrate and on an order passed by the District Magistrate inquiry was done by the Chief Medical Officer and it was under the orders of Chief Medical Officer, the F.I.R. was lodged against the opposite party no.2 on 24.8.2022.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants' grievance regarding the summoning order is satisfiable by directing them to move for discharge.
Whether the trial court committed manifest illegality in summoning appellants for offences under sections 354 and 387 IPC.
Whether coercive measures should be issued against appellants during the pendency of the discharge application.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mohd. Arif And Another
- respondent
State of U.P.
- respondent
Another
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLA/3174/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court