Disposed

Jitendra @ Ankit and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024A482/7079/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application challenging a summoning order. It directed the applicants to file a discharge application taking grounds regarding Section 202 Cr.P.C. and remitted the matter for consideration by the lower court within four weeks. A stay on coercive action was granted for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; applicants instructed to file discharge application; coercive action stayed for two weeks.

Jitendra @ Ankit and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55375

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7079 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra @ Ankit And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Under challenge is the summoning order dated 30.03.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, in Complaint Case No.5303 of 2022 in re: Vishram vs. Jitendra etc.. By the said order, the applicants have been summoned for an offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶8

While raising a challenge to the said order, the argument of learned counsel for the applicants is two folds namely (a) that the death is said to have occurred in Haryana as such the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. would have to be followed, and (b) as the offence under Section 306 IPC is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions consequently all witnesses should have been produced and examined as per the mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. proviso.

¶9

However, considering that the summoning order has been issued and the applicants have a remedy of filing of a discharge application as such the instant petition is disposed of leaving it open to the applicants to file an application for discharge taking the aforesaid grounds.

¶10

It is further provided that in case an application for discharge is filed within a period of two weeks from today by the applicants then the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by the learned Court say within a period of four weeks after hearing all the parties concerned provided there is no legal impediment.

¶11

For a period of two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance to the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 passed in the aforesaid complaint case.

¶12

Order Date :- 12.8.2024

¶13

A. Katiyar

¶14

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra @ Ankit and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra @ Ankit and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile X in Case Crime No. 22/2022 Thru. Guardian His Uncle (Mausa) Vs Union of India Thru. Zonal Director N.C.B., Lucknow

Inzmamul Haq and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ramesh Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shrimati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 6 Others

Ram Naresh Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Raksha Ram and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another