1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Saurbh And Others vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|06 August, 2019
Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30023 of 2019 Applicant :- Saurbh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sharan Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the order dated 7.6.2019 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 8, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 3700 of 2019, 498-A, 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC (Anjali vs. Saurabh and others). 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 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. Learned counsel has stated that in view of the Supreme Court judgement in Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464 (SC), the whole family should not be roped in.
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 so far as the applicant no. 1 is concerned. 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 no.1. 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 so far as the applicant no. 1 is concerned is refused and the application is dismissed vis-a-vis applicant no. 1.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the Court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant no.1.
Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant no. 1 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 no.1.
So far as the applicants no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned in view of the law laid down in Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another, no coercive action shall be taken against them till the next date of listing.
Issue notice to the respondent no. 2 List on the date indicated in the notice.
This case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench.
Order Date :- 6.8.2019 praveen.
(Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Siddhartha Varma
  • Ram Sharan Giri