Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 766 (ALL)

Irsad v. State of U. P.

2016-03-02

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1746 of 2014 (Jahida Khatoon Vs. Irshad and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C., and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Naugarh, Siddharth Nagar as well as the summoning order dated 8.4.2015 passed in the aforesaid case. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A has submitted that applicant has been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 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 applies 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 applies 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. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 8. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant for surrenders before the court concerned. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.