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

Sunil Kumar Chaurasiya And Others vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16851 of 2019 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Chaurasiya And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 27.03.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge, Senior Division, F.T.C. Mirazapur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 365 of 2017 (Ram Hinchh Vs. Sunil and others), under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali City, District - Mirazapur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge, Senior Division, F.T.C. Mirazapur.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that there is dispute of lease between the parties. None has sustained injury from the side of opposite party no.2. This complaint has been filed against the applicants maliciously with false allegation only to harass the applicant.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of proceedings and passing of the impugned summoning order by the court below.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicants.
All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
It is further provided that if applicant nos.2 to 9 apply to dispense with their personal attendance through counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C., the same shall be decided by magistrate concerned sympathetically.
For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Radhika
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Umesh Chandra Tripathi
  • Kameshwar Singh