Dismissed

Manish Kumar Divedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2022/4077/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant for alleged offences under Sections 147-149 and 504 IPC. The court declined to consider disputed defences but granted liberty to seek discharge at the trial court within fifteen days, with a direction for expeditious disposal if filed. Failure to file the application would

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of proceedings dismissed; liberty granted to file discharge application within 15 days with directions for expeditious disposal.

Manish Kumar Divedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4077 of 2021 Applicant :- Manish Kumar Divedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal Misc. Case No. 6425/2019 (State Vs. Shiv Ram and others" and summoning order dated 08.09.2019 as well as charge sheet no. 01 of 2019 dated 03.02.2019, arising out of case crime No. 05/2019, under Sections 147/148/149/323/504 I.P.C., Police Station Dhaneypur, District Gonda.

¶5

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

¶6

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioner has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶7

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present petition, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶8

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to move an application for discharge and the same may be decided by the trial court in a time bound manner.

¶9

However, it is provided that in case, the petitioner moves an appropriate application for discharge before the concerned Court below within a period of fifteen days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, by the concerned Court below preferably within a period of one months, thereafter.

¶10

In case no such application is filed within a period of fifteen days from today, as prescribed above, the present order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.2.2022 R.C.

¶13

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.02.17 17:10:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Kumar Divedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Divedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko 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

Preeti and Another Vs State of U.P Thur. Secy. Home and Another

Sanni Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home Lucknow and Anr.

Sonu @ Mohd. Ashif Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rishu Sindhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Durga Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sakshi Gopal Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another