Disposed

Jyoti @ Jyoti Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2024A482/10534/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order in a criminal case alleging theft, the High Court fixed an early date for the opposite party to file a counter affidavit and stayed the execution of the summoning order against the applicant pending the filing of additional affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite party to file counter affidavit; execution of summoning order stayed against the applicant pending further steps.

Jyoti @ Jyoti Singh vs the State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10534 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Jyoti @ Jyoti Singh Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Bajpai,Suparna Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 03.08.2023 passed in Criminal Case No.3962 of 2022, under Section 379 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Upper Judicial Magistrate-III.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present innocent applicant has been falsely implicated in this case because of some ulterior reason. His further submission is that the present false complaint has been filed just to exert undue pressure upon the applicant. It is also contended that in fact the present applicant filed a suit for partition bearing no.1659 of 2022 against the husband of opposite party no.2 on 19.07.2022. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the present applicant on 08.09.2022, which was directed to be treated as complaint and the present applicant came to be summoned by

¶8

means of impugned summoning order dated 03.08.2023.

¶9

4. His further submission is that the impugned summoning order dated 03.08.2023 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, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Though, prima facie no offence is disclosed against the applicants, despite this fact, applicant has been summoned to face the trial which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the impugned summoning order 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 applicant.

¶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 period.

¶17

12. Meanwhile, impugned summoning order dated 03.08.2023 and any process issued, pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicant only.

¶18

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 22.11.2024 A.Dewal

¶20

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

Jyoti @ Jyoti Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti @ Jyoti Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Similar cases

Arfa Begum vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Junaid Akhtar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Mohd Ishtiyak and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sandeep and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 4 Others

Ranjna Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Mohammad Tayyab and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another