Dismissed

Pradeep Jaitley and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021A482/5492/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application filed in 2007 and presented in 2021, the applicant appeared unrepresented. The court, noting the delay and lack of merit in the arguments, dismissed the application seeking quashing of proceedings. An interim order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing proceedings dismissed; interim order vacated.

Pradeep Jaitley and Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5492 of 2007 Applicant :- Pradeep Jaitley And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶2

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶3

Case called out in revised list. No one is present on behalf of applicants to press the application. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶4

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings along with charge sheet dated 2.5.2006 and further proceeding of Case No. 5890 of 2006 (State Vs. Pradeep Jaitley and others) arising out of Case Crime No. C-01 of 2006, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Mahanagar, Varanasi, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶5

The matter is an old one pending since 2007.

¶6

It is well settled that powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in Court of law. Inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

¶7

Matter is an old one pending since 2007.

¶8

It appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the applicants have lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to get the matter decided on merits and that is why, counsel for applicants is absent.

¶9

However, I have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that the applicants are not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.

¶10

In view of the above, the present application is dismissed.

¶11

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.7.2021/ shiv

Pradeep Jaitley and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Jaitley and 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

Tasleem Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Mohammad Nadeem and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another