This court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge a revisional order. The court held that since the shop in question was ceased under an administrative order, the remedy lies elsewhere, rendering the application misconceived.
Application rejected as misconceived and disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5553 of 2019
Applicant :- Hifazat Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
By means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant is assailing the legality and veracity of the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Agra while deciding the criminal revisio no. 341 of 2018 confirming the order on 06.07.2018 passed by Special CJM, Agra, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act.
From the perusal of the revisional order, it transpires that the shop in question has been ceased in pursuance to some administrative order. Be it so, the remedy lies somewhere else, the application is misconceived and is accordingly rejected.
With the aforesaid observation, the present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.2.2019 Abhishek Sri.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application is tenable when the shop has been ceased in pursuance to an administrative order.
Whether the remedy lies in a separate forum, rendering the current application misconceived.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hifazat Khan
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
