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

Barilal & Others vs State Of U P & Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|08 November, 2017
Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36943 of 2017 Applicant :- Barilal & 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 2279 of 2016 (Smt. Poonam Vs. Barilal and others), under Sections 323, 354, 452, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Jasrana, district Firozabad arising out of summoning order dated 4.7.2017 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Firozabad. 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 the dispute pending between the parties, as alleged in the complaint, did not take place. Both the parties belong to the same family. Entire allegations levelled in the complaint are false. It appears improbable and unbelievable that the applicant no. 2 who is cousin brother of the victim girl would commit the offence under Section 354 IPC against them. It was next argued that complaint is filed in counterblast only to put pressure.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.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. 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/given effect to against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.11.2017 Sachdeva
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
  • Satendra Singh