Disposed

Smt. Neha @ Neha Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.S Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024A482/6842/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged a summoning order passed without the Section 202 Cr.P.C. inquiry mandated where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, relying on Pawan Kumar Yadav; proceedings against petitioner stayed till next date.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings of Case No.58844 of 2023 stayed so far as relating to the petitioner until next listing; notice issued to respondent No.2.

Smt. Neha @ Neha Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.S… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6842 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Neha @ Neha Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.S Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

1. Heard.

¶6

2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 has been filed raising a challenge to the summoning order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Judicial MagistrateIII, Lucknow in Case No.58844 of 2023 In re Nagendra Singh vs Smt Neha. Vide the said order, the petitioner has been summoned.

¶7

3. Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶8

4. List on the date indicated in the notice.

¶9

5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 before the learned court concerned at Lucknow alleging an incident to have been taken place at Police Station Madiyaon. Copy of the said complaint is part of Annexure-2 to the petition.

¶10

6. On the basis of said complaint, the learned Magistrate has issued the summoning order dated 18.03.2024 whereby the petitioner has been summoned.

¶11

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is a resident of District Kheri. Reliance has been placed on the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. to argue that the said provision categorically provides that where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the learned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, then the learned Magistrate has to mandatorily postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit.

¶12

8. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav & Ors vs State of U.P. & Anr : [2014 (1) JIC 221 (All) (LB)] , the argument is that the said provision has been considered by this Court in the aforesaid judgment wherein it has been held that a conscious decision is required to be taken by the learned Magistrate and specific order is required to be passed regarding postponement of issuing process and for initiation of inquiry either by the learned Magistrate himself or direct an investigation as the case may be and the said decision is to be reflected in the order itself.

¶13

9. Further contention is that perusal of the order impugned would indicate that there is no consideration of mind by the learned Magistrate to the aforesaid mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and consequently when the petitioner herein is residing at a place beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, such consideration should have emerged from the order itself.

¶14

10. Considering the aforesaid provisions as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra) prima facie a case for interference is made out. As such till the next date of listing further proceedings of Case No.58844 of 2023 In re Nagendra Singh vs Smt Neha shall remain stayed so far as it relate to the petitioner.

¶15

11. Meanwhile, counter affidavit(s) may be filed.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 prateek

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Neha @ Neha Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.S Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neha @ Neha Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.S Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Smt. Chandra Wati and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Amitabh Thakur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Tanveer Ahmad Alias Manu Sarkar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Pappu vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dayaram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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