Dismissed

Smt Panveshvari and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024A482/12340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order to summon the applicants for trial. The Court found no reason to interfere as the impugned order was supported by recorded statements and proper assignments of offence under the applicants' roles.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected; impugned order upholding summons for trial affirmed.

Smt Panveshvari and 3 Others vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153337

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12340 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Panveshvari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh,Rukmani Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Wahid Jamal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for applicants and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

The applicants are aggrieved by impugned order dated 21.07.2023, whereby they have been summoned to face trial for offence under Sections 323 and 504 and 354 I.P.C. according to their roles.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants submits that allegations are false and are made only in order to put pressure on them. The applicants have filed a civil suit on 07.10.2022 in regard to injunction and within few days thereafter on 12.10.2022, application under Section 156(3) was filed in regard to occurrence took place on 25.09.2022. The ground of prior enmity is absolutely false since no money was given to applicants side by complainant side for purpose of a marriage function.

¶9

I have carefully perused the contents of plaint of civil suit wherein in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 the complainant/plaintiff has disclosed about occurrence took place on 25.09.2022 which is subject matter of present case, therefore, his conduct remained bonafide.

¶10

The applicants have not been summoned in regard to dispute of

¶11

money rather they have been summoned for an occurrence took place on 25.09.2022 in retaliation. The statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have supported the complainant's case. Learned Magistrate has assigned reasons to summon the applicants under different offences according to their roles assigned in statements.

¶12

So far as the averment made in some of paragraphs in regard to other reason for dispute could not be considered at this stage since they are proposed defence.

¶13

In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with impugned order accordingly, present application is rejected .

¶14

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 P. Pandey

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Panveshvari and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Panveshvari and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyanka Sinha and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Hariom Tripathi and Another vs State of Up and Another

Harsh Mishra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Savej Ansari vs State of Up and 5 Others

Narendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yameen and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another