Allowed

Shilesh @ Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020A482/227/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a cognizance order dated 28.4.2018. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide afresh, citing the repeal of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and lack of judicial mind in the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cognizance order dated 28.4.2018 set aside; matter remanded to concerned court to decide afresh.

Shilesh @ Shailesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 227 of 2020 Applicant :- Shilesh @ Shailesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

Present application is decided finally at this stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2. If opposite party no.2 feels aggrieved with this order, he may move recall application.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶5

Heard Shri Satya Prakash Maurya, Advocate holding brief for Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 28.4.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1750 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 882 of 2017, under Sections 198-D(2), U.P.Z.A. & L.R., Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant that in the FIR it has been specifically mentioned that on 2.7.2017 possession was delivered to the allottee but on 11.7.2017 applicant (accused) damaged the crop and reoccupied the land in question. Referring to dates and events disclosed in the F.I.R. and the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 it is also submitted that since U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was repealed, cognizance taken in the matter taking recourse to the provisions of Section 198-D(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is illegal and without application of judicial mind. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

On the other hand, though learned AGA opposed the prayer yet submitted that application may be decided finally setting aside the cognizance order and remitting the matter back to Court concerned for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code and also the fact that U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been repealed, in my, view, present application is liable to be allowed and impugned cognizance order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Accordingly, application is allowed . Impugned cognizance order dated 28.4.2018 is set-aside. Matter is remanded back to the Court concerned to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.

¶11

Order Date :- 4.2.2020/safi

Shilesh @ Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilesh @ Shailesh Kumar 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

Rajesh Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamil Khan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sumit Vs State of Up and Another

Satendra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fate Mohammad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Gupta and 10 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another