SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Indrajeet And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 December, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 47405 of 2019

Applicant :- Indrajeet And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey,Sandeep Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

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

2. The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 13.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 4th, Saharanpur, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.6010 of 2017 (Smt. Rita Vs. Indrajeet Others), under Section-498A, 323 SectionI.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur and order dated 19.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.12 Saharanpur, in Criminal Revision No.343 of 2019 (Indrajeet Others Vs. State of U.P. Others) pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 4th, Saharanpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that present prosecution arises out of matrimonial dispute between applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2. The present criminal prosecution had been lodged only to harass the applicants. Reference has been made to earlier litigation between the parties including a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained in favour of applicant no.1.

4. Having perused the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and Section202 Cr.P.C., it appears that the allegations made against the applicant no. 1 do make out ingredients of the offence alleged. However, the allegations against the applicant nos. 2 3 do appear to be general and vague.

5. The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case against the applicant no.1 is refused.

6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant no. 1 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 in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant no.1 in the aforesaid case.

7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of in respect of applicant no. 1.

8. Insofar as the applicant nos. 2 3 is concerned, the application is entertained.

9. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

10. Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

11. List thereafter.

12. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against the applicant nos. 2 3.

Order Date :- 20.12.2019

S.Chaurasia

 

 

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