Disposed¶11

Dayashanker and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2022A482/19667/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. (13.10.2022), disposes of S.482 Cr.P.C. application No.19667 of 2022 by Dayashanker & Anr. against order dt.15.3.2022 of SDM Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar in S.133 Cr.P.C. Case No.05198 of 2020; merits not entered into; findings in rejected nuisance order confined to that case's proceedings; fresh applications on same cause to be decided per law on complaint and objections; A.G.A. Chandan Agarwal for State.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of without quashing the impugned order, with the observation that any finding in the rejected Section 133 Cr.P.C. order remains confined to the proceedings of that case, and any fresh application on the same cause shall be considered in accordance with law on the basis of the complaint and objections, if any. ¶11

Dayashanker and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 15.3.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.05198 of 2020 (Section 133 Cr.P.C. proceedings) should be allowed, given the contention that the prescribed procedure was not followed, the applicants' objections were not considered, and the findings recorded in the rejected application may be read adversely against them in future.

¶6

Court's answer

Since the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was rejected on the ground that nuisance, if any, had been removed by the police administration, any finding in the said order will remain subject to the proceedings of the said case only; if any other application is filed for the same cause, it shall be considered in accordance with law on the basis of the complaint and objections thereof, if any.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to enter into the merits of the impugned order and disposed of the application with the aforesaid observation.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.; order dated 13.10.2022) disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No. 19667 of 2022) by Dayashanker and another seeking quashing of the order dated 15.3.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.05198 of 2020 arising from a complaint under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The applicants had objected that the complaint was based on incorrect facts, that the prescribed procedure was not followed, and that the objections were not considered, the application having been rejected only because nuisance had already been removed; they feared the recorded findings could be read adversely against them in future. Without entering into the impugned order, the Court held that since the Section 133 application stood rejected on the ground that nuisance, if any, had been removed by the police administration, any finding in that order would remain subject to the proceedings of that case only, and any other application filed for the same cause would be considered in accordance with law on the basis of the complaint and objections, if any.

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19667 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dayashanker And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

The applicants were opposite parties in a proceedings initiated on a complaint filed by O.P. No.2 under Section 133 Cr.P.C.

¶6

By means of this application, applicants have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 15.3.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate,Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.05198 of 2020.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that detailed objections were filed that complaint was filed on incorrect facts however, the Magistrate by the impugned order dated 15.3.2022, has not followed the procedure prescribed, but has also not considered the objections and disposed of the application on the ground that nuisance has already been removed.

¶8

Applicants are aggrieved that the Magistrate while rejecting the application on the ground that nuisance was removed, finding has been given that averments made in the application were correct which likely to be read as an adverse finding against them in future.

¶9

Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A. submits that since the application has been rejected as nuisance has been removed, therefore any finding therein will be limited to the facts and circumstances of the complaint.

¶10

Be that as it may, since the application filed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that nuisance, if any, was removed by the police administration, therefore, any finding in the said order will remain subject to the proceedings of the said case only and any other application is filed for same cause, it shall be considered in accordance with law, on the basis of complaint and objections thereof, if any.

¶11

In view of the above, without entering into the impugned order, this application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.10.2022 SB

¶13

(Serial No.32 out of 363 fresh cases)

¶14

Digitally signed by SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA Date: 2022.10.13 17:35:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dayashanker and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayashanker and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahavir Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nirmala Devi and Tohers Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nawal Kishore Singh Kishwaha Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Balbiri Devi Vs State of U.P and Another

Mohd. Asif Vs State of U.P.and Another