Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3917 (ALL)

Ajay Pratap Shahi v. State of U. P.

2015-12-10

OM PRAKASH VII

body2015
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII, J. The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 819 of 2014, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Padrona, district Kushi Nagar arising out of summoning order dated 3.11.2014 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that initially the applicant had lodged a F.I.R. against the opposite party no. 2 and three other persons for the offence dated 19.6.2014. Police after investigative submitted charge sheet. Present complaint was filed on the basis of false facts showing the same date of offence. The complaint case is false. No incident as alleged in the complaint ever took place and it is a counter blast of the F.I.R. lodged on behalf of the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicant has 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. 5. 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, 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. 6. However, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused. 6. However, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 7. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.