Disposed

Virendra Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2021A482/3406/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging malafide prosecution. Jagran rejected quashing. Court granted protection to allow filing of discharge application within two weeks, restraining coercive action until disposal.

What did the court decide?

None granted regarding quashing; directions given to allow discharge application to be filed with protection from coercive action.

Virendra Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3406 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Yadav And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Phoolbadan Yadav,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of case crime no. 325 of 2020 (Rajjo Vs. Virendra), in pursuance of charge sheet dated 15.09.2020, under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., P.S. Haldharpur, District Mau, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings including charge sheet dated 15.09.2020, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶9

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

¶10

Considering the request of the applicants and in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants appear and move an appropriate application for discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. through counsel before the court below within two weeks 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.

¶11

If the applicants move an application as stated above within two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till disposal of the said application or four months

¶12

from today, whichever is earlier.

¶13

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.3.2021 Arvind

Virendra Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Yadav and 6 Others 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

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Manna @ Salman Vs State of U.P.

Reshu Gupta Vs State of U.P and Another

Faheem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zubair Vs State of U.P.