SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nitin And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 October, 2019


?Court No. – 82

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 38038 of 2019

Applicant :- Nitin And Another

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Indrakesh Kumar Sharma

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 15.11.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, in Complaint Case No.72 of 2017 (Computer No.UPHT040000332017) [Babita Vs. Nitin and others), under Section 354 I.P.C., P.S. Sasni, District- Hathras, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.

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

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 Sections is not made out against the applicants. General allegations have been made in the complaint. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 SectionCr.P.C.. The impugned order does 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 order. The impugned order does 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 applicants. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays for limited protection and requested that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.

Considering the prayer, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 20 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously. For a period of 20 days from today or till submission of surrender application whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

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

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 24.10.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

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