SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arpan Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 October, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 72

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 7540 of 2019

Petitioner :- Arpan Kumar

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Tomar

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present petition under SectionArticle 227 of Constitution of India has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 19.8.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 348/9-167 of 2017 (Smt. Mamtesh Vs. Arpan and others), under Sections-498A, 323, SectionI.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Babri, District- Muzaffar Nagar at present District Shamli and order dated 18.6.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No.120 of 2019, under Section 397(1), SectionCr.P.C., P.S. Babri, District Muzaffar Nagar at present District Shamli.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

4. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner at this stage.

5. The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.

6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

7. For a period of 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

8. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 19.10.2019

T. Sinha

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation