SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jarman Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 September, 2019


?Court No. – 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 35640 of 2019

Applicant :- Jarman Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 6.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Etah in criminal revision no. 366 of 2018 and the summoning order dated 21.4.2011 passed by A.C.J.M. Room No. 18, Etah in complaint case no. 75 of 2011 under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Piluwa, District Etah. Further prayer has been made to stay the bailable warrant.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Section is not made out against the applicant. General allegations have been made in the complaint. The impugned orders suffer from illegality and infirmity.

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicant has been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 SectionCr.P.C.. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Revisional court also considered the matter in right perspective. Further, to decide / adjudicate the plea raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required, which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

In the last, learned counsel urged for a direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicant.

Hence, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned.

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 26.9.2019




Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 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