Dismissed

Nagendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2019A482/3885/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the applicant argued the impugned order was illegal. The court found no infirmity, refused the quashing prayer, but stayed coercive action for two months and allowed a recall application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; coercive action stayed for two months; liberty to move recall application granted.

Nagendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3885 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Nagendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 31.1.2019.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.2732 of 2016 arising out of charge sheet no. 165 of 2015 in Case Crime No. 0497 of 2015, under Sections 147, 324,325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia and Non Bailable Warrant dated 2.12.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia pending in his Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned order has been passed after considering whole evidence on record and is just and legal.

¶10

From perusal of record, it transpires that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the applicants.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶12

However, it is observed that in case the applicants move recall application within a period of two months from today, same shall be decided in accordance with law expeditiously. For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 31.1.2019 P.P.

Nagendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra 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

Neeraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jalaluddin @ Nanhey Tailor Vs State of U.P.

Karelal @ Kariya Vs State of U.P.

Om Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Naresh Yadav and 02 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Masoom and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another