Quashed

Raj Kumar Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2018A482/10771/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash the impugned orders summoning the applicant for trial and issuing warrants due to prosecution without obtaining the requisite sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court quashed the order taking cognizance while granting liberty to the complainant to approach the Competent Authority for sanction pending from the opposite par

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order for taking cognizance; liberty to the complainant to approach the Competent Authority to seek appropriate sanction.

Raj Kumar Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10771 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Pandit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Saxena

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer to quash the order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, District Auraiya as well as order dated 21.1.2017; 21.2.2017 and 8.3.2017 summoning the applicant for trial and issuing non-bailable warrants and further to quash the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 206 of 2016 (Devendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate Vs. Raj Kumar Pandit), under Sections 167 and 218 IPC read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant but, thereafter, final report was submitted and opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition, whereon, the learned court below had summoned the applicant without obtaining required sanction from the Competent Authority for his prosecution.

¶8

Learned counsel for the private respondent could not dispute the said fact.

¶9

In view of above, the order for taking cognizance is hereby quashed with the liberty to the complainant to approach the Competent Authority to seek appropriate sanction of the petitioner and competent authority shall pass appropriate orders, if the opposite party no. 2 moves an application for the same within two months from the production of certified copy of this order.

¶10

With the above observations, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.

¶11

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 1.8.2018/A.P. Pandey

Raj Kumar Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Rahul Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Shahjad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sachin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sushil Kumar Bajpai @ Chanakya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shaheed and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Naushad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others