Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3648 (ALL)

Brijendra @ Pintu v. State of U. P.

2016-11-07

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Certified copy relating to Crime No. 1090 of 2014 filed today by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 order dated 1.4.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Jdge-I, Baghpat in Compliant Case No. 494 of 2015 (Smt. Mukesh Vs. Brijendra and another) under Sections 354-D, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that an F.I.R had been lodged for the offence dated 30.12.2014 said to have been committed by Suresh the husband of opposite party no. 2 in which charge sheet was submitted. Present complaint filed on the basis of false facts is in counterblast to the earlier complaint. It is further submitted that the 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. 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. The application is dismissed.