Dismissed

Ashutosh Singh and Another v. Ankita Singh-Ii, Incharge Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 21 Sultanpur and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024CAPL/3267/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application alleging a Magistrate violated Arnesh Kumar arrest guidelines by remanding applicants to jail after a family property-dispute clash. Court found custody was justified given seriousness of incident and same-family conflict, so no violation occurred.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ashutosh Singh and Another vs Ankita Singh-Ii, Incharge… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3267 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh And Another Opposite Party :- Ankita Singh-Ii, Incharge Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 21 Sultanpur And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gaurav Mehrotra

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Short counter affidavit filed by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent no.2 is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent no.2 has deliberately violated the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2014 8 SCC 273 . He further submits that it is admitted case of the prosecution that incident in question was taken place due to sudden provocation, in which, members of both the sides received injuries and applicant also lodged F.I.R. He further submits that in Parcha No.2, which was prepared on 24.6.2024, the facts were mentioned by the Investigating Officer merely on the basis of presumption that applicant and other associates were abusing Vijay Pratap Singh and his family members by giving threat that ' either leave entire land or they will be eliminated' but no statement of Vijay Pratap Singh and family members were recorded in the case diary. He also submits that thereafter applicants were produced before the Remand Magistrate and it is evident from the record that no evidence was placed before the concerning Magistrate that any life threat was being given by the accused persons except the observation of the Investigating Officer, which was mentioned in the Parcha no.2. He further submits that applicant was sent to jail as alleged offences are punishable upto seven years and learned Magistrate also violated the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) .

¶8

Sri Sunil Bajpai, learned counsel for the

¶9

respondent no.2 submits that respondent officer has acted bonafidely only with the intention to maintain law & order, as applicants and other side belongs to the same family tree so there was a possibility of serious crime, therefore, they were taken into custody and there was no intention to violate the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) .

¶10

Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Special counsel for the High Court submits that on the basis of relevant record placed by the Investigating Officer considering the seriousness of the incident applicants were sent to jail only to avoid the repeated incident. He also submits that respondent officers are always respecting the principles issued by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, notices issued to them may be discharged.

¶11

Considering the contents of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) as well affidavits filed by the respondent nos.1 & 2, it is undisputed fact that applicants and rivals belongs to the same family tree and due to some property dispute incident in question was taken place and grievous injuries were received by the members of both the sides, therefore, Investigating Officer observed in Parcha No.2 about the seriousness of the incident and also observed that there might be a possibility of crime, as a result, applicants were taken into custody. In such circumstances, respondent officers have not violated the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) .

¶12

In view of the above, the present contempt application is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 1.10.2024 Gaurav/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashutosh Singh and Another v. Ankita Singh-Ii, Incharge Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 21 Sultanpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ashutosh Singh and Another v. Ankita Singh-Ii, Incharge Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 21 Sultanpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Naseeb Ahmad Vs Khushboo Yadav, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jarwal, Bahraich

Deepak Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Sharif Vs Sri Pushpendra Singh Gill, Civil Judge J.D., Ii, Bahraich

Anupama Singh vs Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Lko.

Avadhesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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