1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Amaresh Chandra Dubey And Others vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|03 November, 2017
Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36296 of 2017 Applicant :- Amaresh Chandra Dubey And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Mohan Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Prashant Kumar Tripathi, advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 429 of 2016 under Sections 147, 323, 452, 392, 504, 427, 506 IPC, Police Station Cheelh, District - Mirzapur pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mirzapur as well as summoning order dated 13.9.2017 passed by the court concerned. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that one F.I.R. had already been lodged on behalf of the applicants regarding the incident of 4.5.2016. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. Application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved on the basis of false facts. In the F.I.R. lodged on the basis of order passed on the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., police investigated the matter and submitted the final report. Protest petition was filed, but the same was treated as complaint. On the basis of evidence recorded on the complaint, applicants were summoned without applying judicial mind. Present complaint has been filed as a counter blast only to put pressure upon the applicants with malafide intention. No prima facie case is made out.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 argued that applicants have committed the present offence, hence application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved. Complaint case is supported by the statement of the witnesses recorded on the complaint. 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. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.
However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, 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 :- 3.11.2017 / ss
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Om Prakash Vii
  • Hari Mohan Srivastava Neeraj Srivastava