Disposed

Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021A482/2881/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the prayer to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. finding no ground to do so. However, the court permitted the applicant to file a discharge application within one month and granted protection from coercive action until its disposal.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; protection from coercive action granted if discharge application filed within one month.

Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2881 of 2007

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by Sri Sandeep Kr. Srivastava on behalf of applicant be taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 19.12.2005 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 12446 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 814 of 2005, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicants may be permitted to move discharge application before the court concerned and prayed that some protection may be provided to the applicants.

¶11

Considering the request of the applicant and in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicant appear and move an appropriate application for discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. before the court below within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order then the application of the applicant shall be considered and decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of discharge application in accordance with law.

¶12

If the applicants move an application as stated above within one month from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till disposal of the said application or four months from today, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

¶13

Order Dt. 8.12.2021

¶14

K.C.

Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel 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

Arif Ateeq Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Manju Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs Smt. Sheetal Sharma

Rajendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

K.K. Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another