Disposed

Indrajeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2021A482/4930/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash proceedings under S. 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, due to lack of grounds. Instead, the court allowed the applicant a 30-day window to surrender and apply for bail, with a stay on coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

In lye of quashing proceedings, the applicant is granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail with a stay on coercive action.

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4930 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Indrajeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Rastogi, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1311 of 2019 (Van Vibhag vs. Suresh and others), arising out of Range Case No. 92/2017-18, under Section 26 Indian Forest Act, 1927, P.S. Pharenda, District Maharajganj pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pharenda, Maharajganj as well as summoning order dated 14.06.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pharenda, Maharajganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants, after making submissions to some extent, has fairly submitted that necessary grounds for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have not been made out in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, he does not wish to press the principal prayer, as made in the application.

¶8

In view of the above, the relief as sought in the instant application, is refused.

¶9

At this stage, counsel for the applicant makes a submission that the applicant is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the concerned court, seek bail and accept all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon them. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is for expeditious disposal of their bail application.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that in case the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be considered and decided by the concerned Court taking into view the settled legal position in this regard.

¶11

For a period of 30 days from today or till appearance of the

¶12

applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶13

However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶14

It is made clear that no application seeking extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not complied with within the aforesaid period.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.3.2021 C. MANI

Indrajeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet 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

Smt Rekha Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratap Babu Azad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Izhar Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avinash Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deelip Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Islam Vs State of U.P. and Another