Petition under Article 227 sought setting aside of summoning and revisional orders in a complaint case, contending no prima facie offence. The court held the matter involved disputed facts and declined interference, but granted protection from coercive measures for 30 days and bail consideration directions.
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. - 2024:AHC:116302
Court No. - 87
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2180 of 2024
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Fatehpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 38 of 2018 (Virendra Singh vs. Arvind Kumar) and order dated 22.11.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Fatehpur in Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2023 (Arvind Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others) during the pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no interference is required.
Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is refused.
However, considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner applies for bail before the concerned court within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.
For a period of 30 days from today or till the time of applying the bail application before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner.
With the above observations, this petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Puspendra
Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the summoning order and revisional order should be set aside under Article 227 on the ground that no offence is prima facie made out.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherApplied¶12
(2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arvind Kumar Shukla
State of U.P.
Nand Prabha Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
