Disposed

Madan Kumar and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2018A482/16696/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders passed under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. without addressing merits. The S.D.M. was directed to conclude Section 145 proceedings expeditively within one month, and the order under Section 146 was held subject to the final Section 145 order.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; S.D.M. directed to conclude Section 145 proceedings within one month; Section 146 order subject to final Section 145 order.

Madan Kumar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16696 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Madan Kumar And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari,Sheo Shankar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vineet Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application has been filed to quash the impugned orders dated 12.12.2017 and 26.4.2018 as well as proceedings of Case No. 61 of 2017-18, State Vs. Prateek Baranwal and others, under Section 145 (1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C., pending in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mahrajganj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and 146(1) Cr.P.C. are wholly without jurisdiction or authority in view of the fact that the applicants and the private opposite parties are not co-tenants and, therefore, the proceedings were not maintainable. It has then been submitted that the order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is also without jurisdiction or authority and in any case wholly illegal in view of the fact that there is no serious apprehension of breach of peace as may warrant exercise of emergency power.

¶9

In this regard, it has been further stated that while the police report is of the date 24.11.2017, while the order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. had been passed on 26.4.2018.

¶10

Also, the relevant material for exercise of powers under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. has not been examined.

¶11

Last, it has been submitted that the dispute between the parties is pending before the competent civil court.

¶12

Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that in the first place the order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. dated 26.4.2018 has already been given effect to while the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are at an advanced stage. Then, it has been submitted that the civil suit is pending with respect to only one plot no. 648.

¶13

In view of the fact noted above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending. Since the order under Section 146(1) has already been enforced.

¶14

Thus, without entering into the merits of the present application, the same is disposed of with the observation that the S.D.M. concerned may conclude the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order after allowing parties one further opportunity to lead evidence, without allowing any long or undue adjournment to either party.

¶15

Needless to add, the order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. that is under challenge in the present application shall be abide by the final order to be passed by the S.D.M., under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.5.2018 Mini

Madan Kumar and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Kumar and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Sachin @ Rinku Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmveer and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Gulam Sabir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Francis Vs State of U.P.

Prem Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another