Dismissed

Dr. Vikram Singh Bhadauria and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 May 2019A482/18353/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings. It held that disputed facts cannot be decided under this extraordinary jurisdiction. The court directed the trial court to consider an application for case consolidation.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing is refused. Applicants must apply for case consolidation under Section 210 CrPC via counsel within 30 days.

Dr. Vikram Singh Bhadauria and 2 Ors. Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18353 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. Vikram Singh Bhadauria And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Singh Sengar,Mahipal Singh,Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings as well as the summoning order dated 01.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan MagistrateVII, Ghaziabad, in Complaint Case No. 4685 of 2018 (Kripa Shankar Mishra v. Dr. Vikram Singh Bhadauria and others), under Sections 420, 427, 447, 379, 406 of I.P.C., Police Station - Indirapuram, District - Ghaziabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that on the same fact, first information report was lodged before the police, wherein after investigation, the police submitted final report under Section 173(2) of the Code against the applicants. On the basis of the same fact, the present complaint has been lodged, in which the applicants have been summoned.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of criminal proceedings and passing of the impugned summoning order in the aforesaid case by the court below. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 further contended that F.I.R. has been lodged after filing of the complaint. However, he admitted this fact that after investigation, the police has submitted final report against the applicants in the F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no. 2 Kripa Shankar Mishra.

¶9

It is also admitted fact that no order has been passed by the Magistrate under Section 210 of the Code for consolidation of both the cases. Moreover, the applicants have an alternate remedy to get themselves discharged from the trial court. Disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of

¶10

the Code.

¶11

In view of above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

Accordingly, it is directed that if the applicants apply before the Magistrate concerned for consolidation of both the cases under Section 210 of the Code through counsel within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of presentation of such application before the trial court.

¶13

Till the disposal of application under Section 210 of the Code, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicants.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 27.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Dr. Vikram Singh Bhadauria and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vikram Singh Bhadauria and 2 Ors. 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

Suresh Patel and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Chandu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuber Nath Singh Vs State of Up and Another

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

Rauf and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another