Dismissed

Imran Khan v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2018A482/4498/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Sole Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, dismissed the informant's challenge to an order rejecting an application for contempt proceedings. The court held that since the accused had left India before the date fixed for production, the SHO could not have faced contempt for non-production. The application for quashing was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application challenging the order of rejection of contempt proceedings dismissed; court will proceed against opposite party 2 for absence.

Imran Khan Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4498 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Imran Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This is informant's application moved challenging the order dated 24.10.2017 passed in case crime no. 182 of 2017, under sections 452, 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Hafijpur, district Hapur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Hapur, whereby the application requesting to initiate contempt proceedings against the Station House Officer, Police Station Hafijpur, district Hapur.

¶8

It is claimed that an application dated 19.9.2017 was moved against the accused of this case namely Furkan for seizing his pass port. The police of concerned police station appended a report that the said pass port has been deposited in some office at New Delhi, therefore, the same could not be produced as such. However, vide order dated 3.10.2017, the concerned police station officer was directed to produce accused opposite party no. 2 on 5.10.2017 in court whereupon, a report dated 4.10.2017 was appended by the police that the opposite party no. 2 has left India on 29.9.2017 at 6.35 P.M. and has gone from Delhi to Soudi Arbia.

¶9

Obviously, the application before the Magistrate, at Hapur, was moved on 29.9.2017 when the opposite party no. 2 has already left India. It was not

¶10

practicable to the concerned Station House Officer to approach opposite party no. 2 and produce him along with pass port before the Magistrate concerned, therefore, it cannot be said that any contempt was committed by the Station House Officer concerned.

¶11

In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 24.10.2017 in so far as it relates to the rejection of the application dated 10.10.2017 is concerned the same cannot be faulted with and the impugned order is sustained. However, it is clarified that the court below will proceed against the opposite party no. 2 as per the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. for ensuring the presence of the accused.

¶12

Subject to the aforesaid observations, this application is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.2.2018 Iss/

Imran Khan v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Khan v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Rameshwar Vs State

Jharkandey Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pooran Singh Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Bajpei Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Laximan @ Khargosh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Ankur Vs Principal Judge Family Court, Meerut and Another