Dismissed

Uday Sarup v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2019CRLP/13117/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition, the petitioner challenged a State Government notification under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Court observed that the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed in 2016, and the trial was progressing. Finding the petition infructuous and the subject matter exhausted, the Court declined to intervene, holding no further ad

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed at this stage.

Uday Sarup Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13117 of 2015 Petitioner :- Uday Sarup Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Saran Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Gyan Prakash,N.I. Jafri,V.K.S.Chandel

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶3

We have heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 4 and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶4

The writ petition has been filed seeking following prayer:"(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned Notification No.1672/6-Pu-12-132(34)D/13 dated 23 July 2013 of the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946), and Notification No. 228/52/2013-AVD-II dated 22.08.2013 of the Government of India.

¶5

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad in F.I.R. bearing RC No. 7(S)2013/CBI/SCIII/ND at Police SCIII Delhi (CBI Vs. Uday Sarup and others), through which the learned magistrate has illegally and without any authority/jurisdiction and reasons rejected the petitioner's application dated 18.02.2015 and assumed jurisdiction in the case."

¶6

As for as the prayer-B is concerned the same has been given up by the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer as mentioned in clause-A of the prayer i.e. for quashing of the impugned notification dated 23.07.2013, the copy of which has been annexed as annexure no.3 to the writ petition.

¶7

The record shows that the notification of 23.07.2013 was challenged by means of filling the writ petition in the year 2015 and there is no interim order in the matter till date.

¶8

When the case has been taken up for hearing Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has fairly informed the Court that in pursuance of the said notification dated 23.07.2013 the investigation has already been completed, the CBI has filed a charge sheet in the year 2016 itself, the charges have been framed and the trial is progressing.

¶9

It has been further contended by Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, that in view of the fact that the CBI has already filed the charge sheet, the trial is already progressing, the order/notification has already exhausted. No further adjudication is required and the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶10

This Court also finds that the notification is of the year 2013, the writ petition was filed in the year 2015, there is no interim order in the writ petition till date, the investigation has already been completed, charge sheet has been filed, the charges have been framed and the trial is progressing. Thus no case for the grant of any indulgence is made.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at this stage.

¶12

Order Date :- 17.1.2019 VKG

Uday Sarup v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Sarup v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Smt. Divya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tanu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Mabood and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Arshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others