Disposed

Dhumi v. State of Up

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024CRLA/649/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the Allahabad High Court heard a criminal appeal challenging a summoning order. The court noted a chronological discrepancy where the incident date post-dated the complaint date. It stayed the summoning order pending exchange of pleadings and directed service on the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 22.08.2017 is stayed pending exchange of pleadings. Time granted for counter-affidavits by opposite parties and rejoinder by appellant.

Dhumi vs State of Up — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 649 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Dhumi Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ulajhan Singh Bind Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Arzu, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ulajhan Singh Bind, learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA. Although notice has been served upon respondent no.2 but no one appeared on his behalf even in the revised call.

¶6

Through the instant appeal, summoning order dated 22.08.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Baghpat in Case No.09 of 2017 (Bramh Singh Vs. Sripal and others), under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(S) SC/ST Act, P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat, has been challenged. The said summoning order dated 22.08.2017 has been served upon appellant on dated 26.07.2023, although no specific document revealing the service of summoning order upon the appellant has been appended with this appeal but categorical statement has been made by learned counsel for appellant that the said summoning order was served upon the appellant on dated 26.07.2023.

¶7

Learned counsel for appellant has challenged the summoning order on the basis of the complaint dated 29.11.2016 which was sent through speed post on dated 30.11.2016 regarding incident dated 01.12.2016, meaning thereby, the date of incident is much later to the date of application which cannot be entertained by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Baghpat. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that no incident has been occurred on the date of preferring complaint in shape of Complaint Case No.09 of 2017 and as such, the same is not maintainable at all.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer as made in the appeal but did not dispute the fact as mentioned by learned counsel for appellant and as such, matter needs consideration.

¶9

All the opposite parties shall file counter affidavit within four weeks. Two weeks' time thereafter is also extended in favour of learned counsel for appellant to prefer rejoinder affidavit, if any.

¶10

List after exchange of pleadings.

¶11

Till the next date of listing, operation and effect of the summoning order dated 22.08.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Baghpat in Case No.09 of 2017 (Bramh Singh Vs. Sripal and others), under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(S) SC/ST Act, P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat, shall remain stayed.

¶12

Registrar (Criminal) is hereby directed to proceed for service of this order upon respondent no.2 upon whom notice has already been served.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.7.2024 Vivek Kr.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhumi v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhumi v. State of Up

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

Yashpal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Bhan Pal vs Gulab Chandra

Radha Mohan Goyal vs Dewarikarnath Golwara

Prem Nath vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vindhyachal Maurya and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Bablu Alias Mehman vs State of U.P. and Another