Allowed

Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019A482/28378/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. setting aside a lower court order that rejected requests to consolidate two related criminal cases. The court directed consolidation under Section 210 Cr.P.C. and mandated a single bail application, releasing the applicant from coercive action pending surrender.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.08.2012 set aside; both criminal cases consolidated and clubbed for joint trial; applicant directed to surrender within 30 days; single bail application sufficient.

Kailash Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28378 of 2012

¶3

Applicant :- Kailash Chandra Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Jitan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

On the request of parties, matter is being decided at this stage itself.

¶7

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 25.08.2012 in Case No. 920 of 2012 (2291 of 2007) and 74 of 2012 (34 of 2014) (Pradeep Kumar Bajaj Vs. Kailash Chandra Agarwal), under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Bhelpur, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi.

¶8

Heard Shri Ram Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that one FIR was lodged on 26.11.2009 in which after investigation, police submitted final report. Thereafter, protest petition was filed. Concerned Magistrate rejecting the final report took cognizance straightway issuing summon against the applicant. Referring to the supplementary affidavit, it is further submitted that for the same set of facts, summoning order was passed on 21.07.2008 in the complaint proceeding started by the opposite party no. 2. Since both the cases are related to the same set of facts, therefore, an application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. was moved before the court concerned to consolidate both the cases and try together but concerned Magistrate vide impugned order rejected the same issuing non bailable warrant against the applicant. It is further submitted that as per provisions of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. police case as well as complaint case both shall be tried together. Hence, impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that at present, both the matter

¶11

are pending in the same court. Although there is no specific order to try both the cases together.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶13

In this matter, as is clear from the FIR as well as the complaint both the matter are arising out of same set of facts. This fact has also not been disputed by both the parties. If such is the position, both the cases should have been tried together as per provisions of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. Order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the court below is illegal. It appears that concerned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the specific provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. in right perspective. Continuation of proceeding of aforementioned State case and complaint case independently is against the provision of law. Application having substance is liable to be allowed. Impugned order dated 25.08.2012 is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Thus, the present application is allowed. Order dated 25.08.2012 is hereby set aside. Both the cases i.e Criminal Case No. 920 of 2012 (New Number as 3366 of 2019) pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Varanasi (State Vs. Kailash Chandra Agarwal), Police Station Bhelpur, District Varanasi as well as Criminal Case No. 3397 of 2019 pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Varanasi (Pradeep Kumar Vs. Kailash Chandra Agrawal), Police Station Bhelpur, District Varanasi are consolidate and clubbed with each other to try together. Trial court is also hereby directed to conclude the trial taking recourse to the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. It is also made clear that there is no need to obtain bail separately in both the cases. Applicant will only be required to obtain bail either in State case or complaint case.

¶15

However, the applicant is hereby directed to surrender before the court below within thirty days from today. In case, bail application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶16

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶17

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Sanjeet

Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chandra Agarwal 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

Devendra Kumar @ Rinku and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Anand Kumar @ Babli Vs State of U.P.and Others

Krishna Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of U.P.and Another

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

Siya Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Other

Vijay Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.