Disposed

Sonvir v. State of Up

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2021CRLP/5689/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition without addressing the merits. It directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, to decide the petitioner's objection regarding the history sheet within two weeks in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's objection/representation to be decided by Senior Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, within two weeks in accordance with law.

Sonvir Vs State of Up — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5689 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sonvir Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran,Anil Kumar Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed with following prayers:-

¶7

"i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record and to quash the impugned History-Sheet, having History Sheeter no.HS NO.75-A, dated 20.05.2021 opened by the respondents, and/or

¶8

ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Senior Superintendent of Police Firozabad to close the History-Sheet, having History Sheeter no.HS NO.75-A, dated 20.05.2021, inter alia, in the light of Application dated 01.06.2021 moved by the petitioner."

¶9

In the present matter vide order dated 23.09.2021, the Court has asked learned A.G.A. to seek instructions in the matter.

¶10

In response thereof, Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A., on instructions, submits that the petitioner has got various criminal cases to his credit and accordingly criminal history sheet has been opened by the respondents but he fairly states that till date objection/representation dated 01.06.2021 has not been decided by the respondents.

¶11

Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that at this stage the petitioner is inclined that his objection/representation dated 01.06.2021 may be decided by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Firozabad strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration.

¶13

Without expressing on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed off asking the Senior Superintendent of Police, Firozabad-respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid objection/representation of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.

¶14

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶15

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.10.2021 A. Pandey

¶17

Digitally signed by RAM KRISHNA Digitally signed by JUSTICE GAUTAM MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI Date: 2021.10.07 16:37:52 IST Date: 2021.10.07 16:39:05 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Sonvir v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonvir v. State of Up

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

Smt. Shivani Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Milan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indradev Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suresh Chandra and 4 Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Smt Asharafi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saleem Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others