Dismissed

Budd Prakash Tyagi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2018A482/37798/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashment of orders under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. imposing bonds for keeping peace. Court declined to interfere, finding no illegality but allowing applicants to present material to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashment refused; matter remitted to SDM for consideration of further material regarding land possession.

Budd Prakash Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37798 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Budd Prakash Tyagi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought for quashment of the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by S.D.M. Modinagar, Ghaziabad and the entire proceeding in Case No.1354 of 2018 State Vs. Buddh Prakash Tyagi and others, under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. pending in the court of the S.D.M., Modinagar, Ghaziabad.

¶8

Contention has been raised to the ambit that in this case, without rhyme or reason and without any material, the police has filed baseless Chalani report whereupon the S.D.M. concerned without application of mind has taken cognizance and issued notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. to appear before him explaining as to why a bond for keeping peace be not furnished by the applicants.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that notice on the face is not supported by sufficient material justifying action against the applicants.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that in this case, Chalani report of the police of the police station concerned is itself indicative of fact that there is every possibility of the applicants for committing cognizable offence, therefore, their case is very much liable to be restricted by way of notice for keeping the peace. If the applicants have any worthy cause against notice, they may appear before the S.D.M. concerned and present their case.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has added that they have not committed any breach of peace and whatever possession they are in, the same relates to their own land and they have not trespassed land of any other person.

¶12

Considered the submissions and perused the order impugned in the instant application. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, prayer for quashment of the impugned order is refused.

¶13

However, the applicants are free to agitate their claim before the S.D.M. concerned who issued notice to them. If the applicants give any material in support of their case, the same shall be considered and decided by the S.D.M. concerned on its merit in accordance with law.

¶14

Consequently, the instant application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.10.2018 rkg

Budd Prakash Tyagi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budd Prakash Tyagi and 2 Others 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

Divakar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Lahari Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Neha Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Up and Another

Banti @ Phoolan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chetan Vs State of U.P. and Another