Partly allowed

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2022A482/1993/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to quash an order rejecting a discharge application. The court directed the lower trial court to expedite the pending trial and decide the case within three months given the complainant's absence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; lower Court directed to decide the trial case within three months.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1993 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Kumar,Deepankar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶4

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, District Farrukhabad in Criminal Complaint No. 2924 of 2016 (Raja Ram Gupta Vs. Gopal and others) under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Statrion Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, whereby discharge application under Section 249 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶5

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the order impugned as well averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any legal infirmity in the order impugned which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

¶6

The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

¶7

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant is not appearing in the aforesaid case since long therefore, suitable direction may be issued to the concerned Court to consider and decide the aforesaid case.

¶8

Accordingly the Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, District Farrukhabad is directed to consider and decide the trial of Criminal Complaint No. 2924 of 2016 (Raja Ram Gupta Vs. Gopal and others) under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Statrion Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶9

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed off.

¶10

Order Date :- 16.2.2022/S.Ali

¶11

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.02.18 17:21:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mayank Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Som Yadav @ Himanshu Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushal (Juvenile ) Vs State of U.P

Firoz Haider Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gagan Tiwari Vs State of U.P.and Another