The High Court directed the lower court to club two sets of proceedings registered against the petitioners under similar allegations into one proceeding as per Section 210 Cr.P.C., thereby disposing of the writ petition under Article 227.
Direction to club proceedings under Section 210 Cr.P.C.
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:128572
Court No. - 87
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7524 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pragati,Shaili Ganguly Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard Ms. Shaili Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Himanshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to set aside the summoning order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., Sambhal, Chadausi and Revisional Order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Sambhal, Chandausi in Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2022 (Shiv Kumar Vs. State and others) as well as set aside the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 173 of 2020 pending before the Court.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 Shiv Kumar and petitioner No. 2 Indrapal have been prosecuted twice for the same offence. It has also been submitted that initially respondent No. 3 Smt. Pinki registered a Complaint Case No. 385/9/2019 before the learned Civil Judge (C.D.)/ACJM, Sambhal, Chandausi against all the petitioners and, subsequently, on the basis of similar allegations, the father of Pinki i.e. respondent No. 2 Amar Singh has lodged an FIR No. 40 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The date of offence in the Complaint Case is 02.11.2019 and the date of offence in the FIR has not been disclosed but the contents of the FIR are similar. It appears that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have lodged separate proceedings in order to harass them.
From the perusal of record and submissions made above, it is hereby directed to the Court concerned to get the aforesaid two proceedings clubbed together as per the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. and proceed in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.8.2024 Shivani
Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether separate criminal proceedings based on similar allegations should be clubbed together?
Whether the petitioners were prosecuted twice for the same offence?
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Shiv Kumar And 4 Others
State Of Up And 2 Others
Nand Prabha Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
