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

Rohit Giri@Rinku And Others vs State Of Up And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019


Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16085 of 2019 Applicant :- Rohit Giri@Rinku And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sharan Giri 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 17.01.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, District Ghaziabad as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2376 of 2018 (Sayyad Maihraj Ali Vs. Rohit Giri @ Rinku and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station -Sihani Gate, District - Ghaziabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M, Court No.3, District Ghaziabad.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.2, Rahul Giri has lodged F.I.R. against opposite party no.2, Sayyad Maihraj Ali and his family member. In counter blast, opposite party no.2, has lodged this complaint maliciously with false allegation only to harass the applicants.
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 directed that if applicants file an application under Section 245 of the Code for discharge at appropriate stage, the same shall be decided by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.
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.

Rohit Giri@Rinku And Others vs State Of Up And Another


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

29 April, 2019
  • Umesh Chandra Tripathi
  • Ram Sharan Giri