SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Veer Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 25750 of 2019

Applicant :- Veer Singh

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Surat Patel

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Singh Sengar

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 entire proceedings of complaint case no. 51 of 2018 under Sections 323, Section506, Section392 IPC, Police Station, Kadaura, District – Jalaun at Orai arising out of summoning order dated 16.3.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (DAA), Jalaun at Orai. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 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. Referring to summoning order it is also submitted that applicant has not been summoned for the offence under Section 354 IPC, therefore, due to that reason summoning order itself is illegal and without application of judicial mind. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA has submitted that merely on this basis that applicant has not been summoned in some more sections, impugned order cannot be termed to be illegal. Trial court is enough empowered to summon the applicant for other offences during trial if same are made out from the evidence. 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 applicant. 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 :- 8.7.2019/safi

 

 

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