Disposed

Gaurav Sondhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2024A482/4613/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash FIR complaint and summoning order for sections 504 and 506 IPC, claiming no material evidence of battery. Court stayed proceedings, allowed time for counter affidavit, and listed matter for final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Stayed pending proceedings including summoning order; time granted for counter affidavit and rejoinder.

Gaurav Sondhi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4613 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav Sondhi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Utkarsh Srivastava,Prashast Puri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Bajpai

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1.The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing entire proceeding of complaint case No.796 of 2023 Sanjay Kumar Pandey versus Gaurav Sodhi proprietor Radha Krishan Industries', pending in the court of J.M.5, Bahraich as also impugned order dated 1.11.2023 of summoning under sections 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶7

2.Heard Mr. Vineet Trehan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Bajpai, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned complaint has been filed while making sweeping allegations without there being any material filed in support of the complaint. Prior to filing of the complaint, a notice was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner dated 1.10.2022 which was received on 21.10.2022 by the petitioner and was replied on 4.11.2022.

¶9

The respondent No.2 gave a rejoinder to the said reply given by the petitioner dated 22.11.2022. In this rejoinder, there is no whisper regarding the alleged incident which took place on 15.10.2022. It is submitted that in the entire prosecution case, except from the statements and pleading in the complaint, there is no material to show that any batteries at all were given to the petitioner.

¶10

It is submitted that while passing the impugned cognizance and summoning order, the Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance and issued summons without scrutinizing the allegation(s) in the complaint. No enquiry has been held by the Magistrate under section 202 CrPC or investigation has been directed by him to cull out the truth in the complaint case. Even the statement of the complainant under section 200 CrPC does not attract sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.

¶11

Reliance has been placed on the opinion/ answer dated 16.1.2024 to reference (paras 7 and 8) in Bansilal S. Kabra versus Global Trade Finance Limited and another Criminal Appeal No.1344 of 2010 passed by High Court of Bombay.

¶12

4.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the petition, however, he has failed to show any material in support of the complaint case or from the statement of the complainant under section 200 CrPC that offence under sections 504, 506 I.P.C. is made out.

¶13

5.Considering the argument advanced, perusal of the record as also the order referred to above, I find that the matter requires consideration.

¶14

6.Four weeks' time is allowed to file counter affidavit, two weeks then for the rejoinder.

¶15

7.List on 31.10.2024.

¶16

8.Till further orders of the court, the impugned proceedings including the summoning order dated 1.11.2023 (supra) shall remain stayed.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.5.2024/kkb/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gaurav Sondhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Sondhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deshraj Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Manish Chand Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chhotu @ Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Riyasat Ali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vaibhav Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Dr.Anita Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another