Raju and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024A482/10054/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of summoning order based on discrepancies in complaint dates and witness statements. Court advises interim stay on process while issuing notice and requiring affidavits from parties before final consideration.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on impugned summoning order and any process issued thereof qua the present applicants only while notice is issued and parties are directed to file affidavits.

Raju and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10054 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Raju And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 17.05.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Room No.1/Judicial Magistrate Gonda in Complaint Case No.14241 of 2023, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kaudiya, District Gonda.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present innocent applicants have been summoned by means of impugned summoning order dated 17.05.2024 on the basis of a complaint filed by opposite party no.2, who is husband of applicant no.9, Varsha Srivastava @ Shalu. His further submission is that just to exert undue pressure upon the applicants, opposite party no.2 has filed a false complaint in respect of an alleged incident which, according to opposite party no.2, occurred on 15.01.2023. It is also contended that in fact in respect of the alleged incident which occurred on 15.01.2023 a delayed complaint came to be lodged on 17.04.2024, which is evident from a copy of the complaint available at page 15 of the instant application.

¶8

4. His further submission is that PW-1, Yogeshwar Nath

¶9

Tiwari, in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has stated that the alleged incident occurred on 15.01.2023. However, PW-2, Shriram, in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has stated that the alleged incident occurred on 15.01.2020. He, thus, submits that the impugned summoning order dated 17.05.2024 is not in conformity with the statement of the complainant/opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses, PW-1, Yogeshwar Nath Tiwari and PW-2, Shriram recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Though, no prima facie no offence is disclosed against the applicants, despite this fact, applicants have been summoned to face the trial which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

¶10

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer. However, he could not dispute the factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and keeping in view the submissions advanced by them, the matter requires consideration.

¶12

7. Issue notice to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

¶13

8. Steps be taken within a week.

¶14

9. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.

¶15

10. A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

11. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid

¶17

period.

¶18

12. Meanwhile, impugned summoning order dated 17.05.2024 and any process issued, pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants only.

¶19

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 A.Dewal

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lavkush Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Haarun Vs Union of India (D.R.I)

Rahul Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko

Rohit Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Aman Wallia vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Ashish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others