Dismissed

Brijesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 04 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2018CRLP/25057/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition challenging orders under the U.P. Goonda Control Act, 1970, regarding election irregularities, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court found no illegality, impropriety, or abuse of process in the impugned orders and noted the absence of perversity or failure of justice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it lacks merit.

Brijesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

A F R

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25057 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Brijesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 04 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing impugned order dated 21.07.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Mainpuri (i.e. respondent no.3) in Case No.D201801490001389 under Section 03(1) of U. P. Goonda Control Act, 1970, P. S.Kurrah, District-Mainpuri as well as to quash order dated 25.08.2018 passed by Commissioner, Mainpuri Division, Mainpuri, District-Gorakhpur (i.e. respondent no.2) in Appeal No.1695 of 2018, under Section 03(1) of U. P. Goonda Control Act, 1970, P. S.Kurrah, District-Mainpuri.

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such illegality, impropriety, incorrectness or irregularity or abuse of Court's process or any breach of Constitutional mandate in either of the impugned orders, which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same and which appears to have been passed with judicial application of mind.

¶9

It is apparent from the allegations that attempts to interfere in the fair procedure of voting process was made from the accused side. FIR was lodged in that regard with allegations that forceful entry in the polling booth was made, ballet papers were snatched and on being resisted, manhandling was done with the officers on duty. Ballet papers, details of which have been given in the FIR, were taken away. Information was given to Sector Magistrate, who arrived along with police force on spot. Applicant was arrested on the spot. It goes without saying that we live in civil society where rule of law prevails and voting process is the foundation stone upon which the democratic functioning of our nation or any government rests. Such kind of hooliganism as has become common these days tends to decimate the sanctity of the elections and simply cannot be countenanced with. This Court does not see any such good

¶10

reason or any abuse of Court's process caused by the impugned orders, which may persuade this Court to interfere.

¶11

The facts and evidence appears to have been appreciated by the respondent authorities in right perspective and the analysis done does not deserve any castigation. This Court does not see any element of perversity in the impugned orders and there does not appear any failure of justice to have been caused. It is not in routine that this Court exercises its powers of writ jurisdiction. The concurrent findings cannot be set aside for no rhyme or reason. The grounds must be weighty and this Court must be satisfied that there is some such serious incorrectness or impropriety or flawed irregularity in the orders, which appear to have undermined the even fabric of the Constitution before it can feel persuaded to exercise its extraordinary powers. No such castigation can be made against either of the impugned orders.

¶12

The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.9.2018 Manish Himwan

Brijesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 04 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 04 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Netram and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Smt. Gayatri Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul @ Prince and Anr. Vs State of U.P.