Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1418/2013 of Suman AND OTHERS Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER on 28 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No.1418 of 2013 Suman and others … Applicants vs. State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Mrs. Lata Negi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Hari Om
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No.1418 of 2013
Mrs. Lata Negi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the State.
U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 13.06.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar in Criminal Complaint no.502/2012 titled as Kaluram vs. Suman & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 452 IPC. The applicants also seek to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court.
2. Accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 452 IPC, vide order dated 13.06.2013 passed by learned Additional C.J.M., Laksar, on the basis of a complaint filed by one Kaluram. The order dated 13.06.2013 was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision no.258/2013, which was dismissed, vide order dated 05.12.2013.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the accused-applicants submitted that she is not keen to argue the case on merits and instead, made a prayer that learned Magistrate be directed to decide the bail application of applicants on the same day, subject to their surrender.
4. Considering the nature of offence and the allegations levelled against the applicants, this Court feels that the innocuous made prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants is worth accepting. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that the applicants shall surrender before the court concerned on or before 28.01.2014.
5. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed as ‘not pressed’, but with the direction that if the applicants surrender before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar and seek bail, their bail application(s) shall be decided by the court concerned on the same day.
(U. C. Dhyani, J.)
Dated 28[th] December, 2013 Rawat