Partly allowed

Ankur @ Ankur Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2021A482/1470/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge declined to quash the FIR citing prima facie existence of offence, but granted leave to file an appeal to the Supreme Court within one month. Alternatively, leave was granted to be present before the subordinate court for three months.

What did the court decide?

Interim leave granted to approach Supreme Court for quashing within one month; alternatively, to be present before subordinate court for three months.

Ankur @ Ankur Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1470 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ankur @ Ankur Maheshwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava,Vindeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

vkosnd dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0 485 lu 2018] vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk lgloku] ftyk cnk;Ww esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= fn0 10&7&2018 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 7783 lu 2020] tks lh0ts0,e0] cnk;Ww ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr rych vkns’k fn0 12&8&2020 ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

¶6

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj’khyu fd;kA

¶7

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkosnd ds fo:) xyr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ vafdr djk;h x;h gS rFkk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa fy[kk;h x;h ckrsa fujk/kkj gSa] vkosnd ds fo:) mijksDr /kkjkvksa dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha curk gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd og izkFkZuk [k.M esa dh xbZ vU; izkFkZukvksa ij ncko ugha Mkyuk pkgrs gSa] cfYd voj U;k;ky; esa mUekspu izkFkZuk i= nkf[ky djus dh vuqefr pkgrs gSa rFkk muds }kjk nkf[ky fd, x, mUekspu izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k djus dk] lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; dks funsZ’k fn;k tk;A

¶8

eSaus mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZ ij fopkj fd;kA

¶9

mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZ ij fopkjksijkUr ,oa vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls bl Lrj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd vkosnd ds f[kykQ mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr dksbZ vijk/k xfBr ugha gksrk gSA vkosnd dh vksj ls tks rdZ izLrqr fd, x, gSa os fookfnr rkfF;d iz’u ls lacaf/kr gSa] ftuds fo"k; esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vkosnu i= ij dksbZ QSlyk nsuk laHko ugha gS] pwWfd mDr rkfF;d iz’uksa dk fofu’p; fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk gh lk{; vkus ds ckn fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 esa fn, x, fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd bl Lrj ij dsoy izFke n`"V;k gh dsl ns[kk tkuk gSA eqyfteku dk tks fookfnr cpko dFku gS ml ij bl Lrj ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA rn~uqlkj ;g vkosnu i= cyghu gS vkSj fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶10

gkyWkfd ;fn vkosnd vkt ls 1 ekg dh le;kof/k esa] lEcfU/kr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k bl vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi ds lkFk] dkuwu esa vuqeU; rjhds ls mUekspu izkFkZuki= nkf[ky djrk gS rks lacaf/kr U;k;ky; }kjk mHk; i{k dks lqudj] U;k;ksfpr vkns'k ds ek/;e ls mldk fuLrkj.k /kkjk 244 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij 'kh/kzrkiwoZd] ;FkklaHko 6 ekg ds vUnj fd;k tk;A ;fn v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vkosnd ds fo:) vkjksi fojfpr djus dk fu.kZ; ysrk gS rks ml fLFkfr esa og vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus dh frfFk ij vkosnd dks O;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkr gksus ds fy, funsZf'kr dj ldrk gS vkSj ml frfFk ij mlls tekurukes eWkx ldrk gSA

¶11

vkt ls 30 fnu ds vUnj vFkok vkosnd ds lEcfU/kr voj U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr [email protected] djds fueqZfDr vkosnu i= izLrqr djus esa] tks Hkh igys gks] vkosnd ds fo:) mijksDr okn dh dk;Zokgh LFkfxr jgsxhA fdUrq ;fn vkosnd dh vksj ls 30 fnu ds vUnj voj U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj fueqZfDr izkFkZuk i= izLrqr ugha fd;k tkrk rks ;g vkns’k Lor% fu"izHkkoh le>k tk;A

¶12

mDr funsZ'kksa ds lkFk ;g izkFkZuki= vfUre :i ls fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA fn0 % 18&11&2021 ds0lh0flag

¶13

2 of 2

Ankur @ Ankur Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur @ Ankur Maheshwari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Himanshu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramanuj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another