Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MITHLESH SHUKLA & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Mithlesh Shukla & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12751 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15166 (7 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

(Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12751 of 2007

***

1.Smt. Mithlesh Shukla wife of Devi Shanker Shukla.

2.Rahul Shukla son of Devi Shanker Shukla.

3.Devi Shanker Shukla son of Ramadhin Shukla.

All residents of Bangali Muhal Rameri,

Police Station Kotwali, District Hamirpur. ........ Petitioners.

Versus

1.State of U.P. through Secretary, Ministry of

Law and Justice U.P. Lucknow.

2.Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1,

Hamirpur.

3.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur.

4.Civil Judge ( Jr. Div.)/ Magistrate, Ist Class

Hamirpur.

5.Smt. Puneeta Tewari, wife of Vijay Kumar,

Resident of Bangali Muhal Rameri, P.S.

Kotwali Hamirpur

District Hamirpur. ......... Respondents

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1.A mother , father and their son who were summoned in Crl. Complaint Case No. 575 of 2003 under Sections 452,323,504 and 506 I.P.C., by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hamirpur vide order dated 6.2.2004., have come to this Court for quashing the said order. Petitioners had also gone in Revision (No. 8 of 2006) and the revising Court dismissed the revision vide order dated 23.7.2007 and that is why this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2.Heard Sri Prabhat Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.D. Tripathi, Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

3.The petitioners' grouse against the orders passed by the court below is two fold;

(i) That the Complaint in which they have been summoned is filed as a reprisal measure as to coerce them into submission in a pending Civil Suit filed by respondent No. 5 and her son against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 for the cancellation of a sale-deed of a house , which was executed by Sri Vijai Kumar, husband of respondent no. 2, infavour of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.

(ii) There is no prima-facie sufficient evidence as to support the summoning order under Sections 323,452,504 and 506 I.P.C. passed against them.

4.Both these submissions relate to the facts, which can only be gone into at the stage of Trial. This writ petition has no force, and is dismissed of accordingly.

5.However, as submitted if the petitioners put their appearance before the Trial Magistrate within 20 days from today and after obtaining bail, they raise objections in this behalf by filing a discharge application, annexing certified copy of the civil proceedings between the parties, the Trial Magistrate before he proceeds with the Trial will decide their application and till then no coercive process will be issued against the petitioners.

Dated: 7.9.2007

12751/07 n.u.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.