Dismissed

Irfan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2018A227/1083/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a writ petition for certiorari challenging an order denying fresh appearance of the petitioner. The court held the petition was mala fide and intended to delay proceedings, clarifying the petitioner is already a accused in the original case.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed; petition was held to be an attempt to delay proceedings.

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1083 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Irfan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Saxena,Vijit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This petition has been filed with a prayer to issue writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 8.1.2018 passed by Session Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar and order dated 5.1.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate2, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed application before learned Magistrate through counsel to clarify as to in which case his appearance is required and on that application, learned Magistrate has directed counsel for the petitioner to assure the appearance of the petitioner in the Court. Against this order, a Criminal Revision was filed and the said revision was dismissed by the impugned order dated 8.1.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. It has been further contended that in the present case on 28.2.2015, cognizance has been taken by Magistrate under Section 376D-II, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. After that on the request of Investigating Officer, chargesheet has been amended under Section 376D-II, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. It was not clarified to the petitioner as to in which case the appearance of the petitioner is required.

¶8

Learned AGA contended that the chargesheet is available on record and every thing is clear.

¶9

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that a cognigance under Section 376D-II, 323, 504 and 506 IPC in Case Crime No.319/2013, PS- Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, has been taken against the petitioner. In that case, NBW and process under Section 82 and 83 has been issued against the petitioner. There is no provision in Cr.P.C. for subsequent cognizance. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that petitioner is wanted in Case Crime No.319/2013, under Section 376D, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, PS- Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar. This petition is filed only to delay the proceeding of the lower court and escape himself from the proceedings of the case.

¶10

Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 15.3.2018 Deepika

Irfan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Tafjjul Kalim Quraishi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Suneel Kumar Seth Vs State of U.P.