Dismissed

Smt. Rita Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2020A482/308/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a misleading and non-maintainable subsequent filing for the same relief and facts, noting that a prior application had denied quashing proceedings while granting bail protection that was not availed.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as non-maintainable being a subsequent filing on identical facts and prayer without changed circumstances.

Smt. Rita Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 308 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Rita Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Girija Saran Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

The applicants namely, Smt. Rita Gupta and Hariom Gupta, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer to quash/set aside the N.B.W. order dated 13.11.2019, passed in Complaint Case No. 2551 of 2015, under Sections- 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station- Gwaltoli, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending before the Court of A.C.M.M. VIII, Kanpur Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. No. 9306 of 2018, Rita Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, vide order dated 23.3.2018, had given a protection for appearing before trial court and applying for bail but this could not be availed, under wrong advice given to applicants that a criminal revision was pending and after dismissal of this revision, N.B.W. was issued. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.

¶7

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has put his appearance and argued that it is a misleading proceeding, second time being filed for the same relief, which was also filed in a previously instituted proceeding.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.

¶9

From the very perusal of order dated 23.3.2018, in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9306 of 2018, Rita Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, it is apparent that relief for setting aside summoning order and proceeding in complaint case was denied i.e. summoning order and its proceeding was confirmed. However, a protection was given regarding bail but this was not complied with. Hence, this second application is with same

¶10

prayer under same facts of circumstances on record. However it is being argued to be changed circumstances but in some of the circumstances, the same is one and common. Accordingly, this subsequent application is not maintainable.

¶11

Dismissed as such. Order Date :- 10.1.2020 Kamarjahan

Smt. Rita Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rita Gupta and Another 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

Gajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay @ Sanju and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sultan Kushwaha and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Umesh Yadav and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veerpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajdhari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another