Disposed

Kamal Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024A227/5059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a summons and revisional orders in a criminal case. The court held that factual disputes cannot be adjudicated under Article 227 but directed the trial court to issue a reasoned order on an application for discharge within 30 days and barred coercive measures during that period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to set aside summoning and revisional orders refused; petitioners granted 30 days immunity from coercive measures contingent on moving for discharge.

Kamal Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153663

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5059 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kamal Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.C. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgement and order (summoning) dated 22.8.2022 (Annexure No. 5) passed by the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Complaint Case No. 1900 of 2022 (Beeri Singh vs. Kamal Singh & Others) as well as the order of learned Revisional Court (The Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 26) Agra passed in Criminal Revision No. 280 of 2023 (Kamal Singh & others vs. State of U.P. & Others) (Annexure No. 7) as well as the order of learned Revisional Court (The Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 26), Agra passed in Criminal Revision No. 280 of 2023 (Kamal Singh and Others vs. State of U.P and Others) (Annexure No. 7) dated 1.3.2024.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. 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.

¶9

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is refused .

¶10

However, in view of the submissions, it is provided that in case the petitioners move an application for discharge through counsel within 30 days, the same shall be disposed of by the Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two

¶11

weeks thereafter.

¶12

For a period of 30 days or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 Puspendra

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamal Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rampal Sharma vs State of Up and Another

Vaibhav Gupta and Another vs State of Up and Another

Mashuk Ali vs State of Up and 14 Others

Charan Singh and Another vs State of Up and Another

Mohd. Asif vs State of U.P. and Another

Grow Max Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Neal and Company, Gbt Nagar, Allahabad