Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 997 (ALL)

Jai Mahalaxmi Dayal v. State of U. P.

2016-03-17

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 4249 of 2013, under Sections 427 IPC, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of summoning order dated 26.8.2003 pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and also to quash the order dated 15.2.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge-IInd Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 421 of 2015. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State. 3. 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. 4. 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. 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 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. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.