The court dismissed this Section 482 CrPC appeal filed against an order staying proceedings on false allegations. It held the appeal was a frivolous attempt to delay justice, as it lacked any legal ground or question of law.
The application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed in its original terms.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11331 of 2022
Applicant :- Krishna Kant Agrawal Gupta @ Krishna Kant And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harish Kumar Yadav,Surendra Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
vkosndx.k dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0 550 lu 2019] vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 406] 506 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl] ftyk eqjknkckn esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= fn0 28&1&2021 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 5002 lu 2021] tks lh0ts0,e0] dksVZ ua0 5] eqjknkckn ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr vkns’k fn0 20&4&2022 ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA
vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk] foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj’khyu fd;kA
vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr fd;k foi{kh la0 2 us vkosndx.k ds fo:) mijksDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ bl dFku ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k fd foi{kh la0 2 dk dks;ys dk O;kikj gS rFkk vkosndx.k dh QeZ LokfLrd b.Vjizkbtst jkexaxk fcgkj Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl] eqjknkckn fLFkr gS rFkk ,d dk;kZy; xka/kh /kke dPN xqtjkr ij Hkh fLFkr gS] tgkW ds jgus okys d".k dkUr vxzoky o jk?ko d".k dkUr vxzoky us foi{kh ds eqjknkckn dk;kZy; vk;s rFkk crk;k o fo’okl fnyk;k fd og mlds czksdj ds :i esa dk;Z djuk pkgrs gSa vkSj foi{kh dks fo’okl fnyk;k fd bZekunkjh ls dk;Z djsaxsA foi{kh us mu ij fo’okl djds muds crk;s QkeZ ij eky nsuk 'kq: dj fn;k vkSj ysu nsu pyrk jgkA ckn esa foi{kh dks irk pyk fd mDr yksxksa us QthZ rjhds ls dwV jfpr jpuk djds o iz;ksx djds izkFkhZ dh QeZ o QeZ ds [kkrs esa iSlk u VzkUlQj djkrs gq, /kks[kk nsus ds fy, vius [kkrs esa iSlk VzkalQj djk fy;k vkSj foi{kh ds lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h djh o QthZ fcy Hkh rS;kj fd;s vkSj yk[kksa :i;s dh /kks[kkMh mDr yksxksa us foi{kh ds lkFk dh gS rFkk muds "kM;U= esa vkSj yksx Hkh 'kkfey gSa o jde Hkh ugha ns jgs gSa rFkk vfHk;[email protected] foi{kh dks tkueky dh /kedh Hkh ns jgs gSaA
vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd ;g O;kikfjd ysu nsu dk ekeyk gS] rFkk ;g O;ogkj izd`fr dk fookn gS rFkk foi{kh la0 2 }kjk vkosndx.k ij uktk;t ncko cukus ,oa mUgsa rax o ijs’kku djus dh uh;r ls muds fo:) bl izdkj dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fy[kk nh gS] ftl ij fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr iz’uxr vkns’k ds }kjk vkosndx.k ds fo:) ,u0ch0MCyw0 ,oa /kkjk 82 na0iz0la0 dh dk;Zokgh tkjh djus dk funsZ’k tkjh dj fn;k x;k gS] fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mijksDr iz’uxr vkns’k leqfpr foospuk ,oa rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr ugha gS] blfy, iz’uxr vkns’k =qfViw.kZ gS ,oa vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd eky&fodz; vf/kfu;e] 1930 ds /kkjk 55 esa dgk x;k gS fd tgkW fodz; dh lafonk ds v/khu eky esa dh lEifRr dzsrk dks ladzkUr gks xbZ gS vkSj dszrk lafonk ds fucU/kuksa ds vuqlkj ml eky dk lan; djus dh mis{kk ;k djus ls badkj lnks"k djrk gS ogka fodzsrk eky dh dher ds fy, mlds fo:) okn yk ldsxkA mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa Surya Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2015 8 ADJ 580 rFkk
2
Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2022, Jagmohan Singh vs. Vimlesh Kumar & Ors, esa ikfjr fof/k fl)kUrksa dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;kA
foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkosndx.k us czksdj cudj foi{kh la0 2 dk iSlk gM+i fy, gSa rFkk mls rFkkdfFkr QeZ ds ,dkmUV esa ugha Mkyk gS] blfy, iz’uxr vkns’k mfpr gS rFkk mlesa dksbZ =qfV ugha gSA
eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr mijksDr uthjksa ,oa eky fodz; vf/kfu;e] 1930 dh mDr /kkjk dk ifj’khyu fd;kA
ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nk;j fd;k x;k ;g vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk okn la0 5002 lu 2021] tks lh0ts0,e0] dksVZ ua0 5] eqjknkckn ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr vkns’k fn0 20&4&2022 vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA
dk;kZy; dks funsZ’k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns’k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc Hkstuk lqfuf’pr fd;k tk;A
fn0 % 2&9&2022 ds0lh0flag
Digitally signed by KAILASH CHANDRA SINGH Date: 2022.09.07 16:38:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present appeal under Section 482 CrPC was a frivolous attempt to delay the trial.
Whether the impugned High Court order was susceptible to any question of law or fact.
Whether the proceedings were being conducted with malice and intent to cause delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and AnotherReferred¶10
Surya Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2015 8 ADJ 580
Jagmohan Singh vs. Vimlesh Kumar & Ors.Referred¶12
Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2022, Jagmohan Singh vs. Vimlesh Kumar & Ors.
Order VII Rule 11 CPCReferred¶9
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishna Kant Agrawal Gupta @ Krishna Kant And Another
State Of U.P. And Another
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
