SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shyam Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 December, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 44222 of 2019

Applicant :- Shyam Singh And 2 Others

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Shyam Singh, Ravi and Lakhan Singh against State of U.P. and Devendra Prakash with prayer to quash entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 299 of 2017, Devendra Prkash Vs. Shyam Singh and others, under Section 406 I.P.C., P.S. Baghwala, district Etah, pending in court of C.J.M., Etah.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that alleged vehicle is under registered name of complainant, though it was purchased by applicants and amount was paid, but there is no documentary evidence of such payment and no offcence was committed by them. But this complaint was made by misuse of process of law. Hence this application with above prayer.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed.

From the very perusal of complaint, it is apparent that Bolero vehicle of complainant was taken by applicants, but the payment of the same was not made, whereas threat and abuse was extended, when it was called for. Same is the contention in the statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 SectionCr.P.C. There is no evidence of such payment said by applicants. This is a fact to be seen by trial court during trial. This court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is matter of trial to be seen during trial.

There is no misexercise of jurisdiction or frustration of ends of justice. The proceeding merits its dismissal.

Dismissed as such.

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

For a period of thirty days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 10.12.2019

Pcl

 

 

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