Amarjeet Singh vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 21482 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Judgment Reserved on 25.11.2022
 
Delivered on  16.12.2022. 
 
Court No. - 84 
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6333 of 2012 
 
Applicant :- Amarjeet Singh 
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. 
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Mishra 
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Pankaj Sharma 
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 

1. It has been brought on record that an application was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.2602 of 2012 on behalf of co-accused for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 25.3.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, passed in Case No.1661 of 2010 (Jitendra Vs. Amarjeet Singh and others) under Section 420 I.P.C., P.S.Kotwali, district-Mathura. This Court vide order dated 29.3.2018 while rejecting the prayers to quash the impugned summoning order dated 25.3.2011 granted time to the applicant to appear.

2. Reference of above referred order, is mentioned hereinafter:

" Heard Sri Shiva Tripathi, Advocate holding breif of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material on record.

The applicant, Bala Prasad Patel, through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 25.3.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 1661 of 2010 (Jitendra Vs. Amarjeet Singh and others) under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura and stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order.

From the perusal of the record, it cannot be said that, prima facie, no case is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only in cases where the court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, the prayer made is refused.

However, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that if the applicant moves an application for discharge through counsel within two weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of by the trial court by speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. For the period of four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the aforesaid direction."

3. There is no ground to differ from above order, therefore, prayer to quash impugned criminal proceedings is rejected and present application is also disposed of.

4. The applicant shall appear before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and a bail application if filed, the trial Court will undertake all endeavour to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law considering the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

Order Date :- 16.12.2022

SB