Dismissed

Sudha Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2021A482/6253/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Vivek Agarwal dismissed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application filed for the second time on the same causes of action. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 40,000 on the applicants for abusing court process and filing multiple petitions fraudulently.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Cost of Rs. 40,000 imposed on applicants jointly to be paid to Legal Service Authority.

Sudha Yadav and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6253 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sudha Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjana Singh,Shesh Nath Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Ramdaras Yadav, applicant no. 2, is present in person with his counsel Sri Brij Lal Shukla. Sri Shesh Nath Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶6

Sri Ramdaras Yadav is heard on the issue of misconduct committed by him. Sri Ramdaras Yadav submits that he is retired from UP Police from the post of Diwan (Head Constable). He submits that he is a pensioner. He apologies for his alleged misconduct and submits that he had though given a case to his earlier counsel and earlier counsel got his photograph clicked for the purpose of filing of the petition, but thereafter he could never contact his counsel. Under mistaken belief, he has filed second application under section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming same relief. Sri Ramdaras Yadav submits that after retirement, he has undergone operation of kidney and also operation in regard to some heart ailment. He also submits that his wife is also suffering from various diseases and on account of such ailment she has not come to the Court today.

¶7

However, there is no satisfactory explanation as to why second petition was filed without ascertaining the fact of disposal of first petition. Sri Ramdaras Yadav submits that he had travelled to Allahabad to give papers to his counsel Sri Brij Lal Shukla. This statement given by Sri Ramdaras Yadav makes it abundantly clear that he had come to Allahabad to verify about fate of his earlier petition. From the appearance of his previous job profile, it cannot be said that he is illiterate and was not having any knowledge as to the pleadings in the earlier petition and pleadings in the present petition. Therefore, there is tacit admission of committing fraud by filing multiple petitions on the same cause of action seeking same relief of quashing of the entire criminal proceedings as well as charge sheet dated 20.6.2017 and cognizance order dated 7.4.2018 in Case No. 734 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 449 of 2017, under section 352, 353, 504 IPC, police station Kasimabad, District Ghazipur.

¶8

Such practice needs to be curbed and this Court is thankful to Sri Shesh Nath Singh Yadav, who has been vigilant and has taken pains to bring the act of forgery committed on the part of the petitioner, to the knowledge of this Court. However, it is not always possible to have such vigilant counsel like Sri Shesh Nath Singh Yadav coming to the assistance and aid of the court. Therefore, with a view to curb such practice committed on part of the applicant Sri Ramdaras Yadav, a cost of Rs. 40,000/(Rupees forty thousand) is imposed on Sri Ramdaras Yadav and Smt. Sudha Yadav to be paid jointly in the cell of legal service authority of High Court, Allahabad within 30 days from today, failing which Registrar General is free to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur to seek attachment of his land and recover the cost as arrears of land revenue.

¶9

This order has been passed in the open court in presence of Sri Ramdaras Yadav with a view to send a message in the society that Court process and procedure is not to be misused and they are not the hand made of the litigants to be used as per their convenience in violation of established norms, rules and procedure.

¶10

On merits, application is dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 9.9.2021 S.K.S.

Sudha Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Yadav and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Prakash Saxena and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jameel and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juhi Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Izhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another