Dismissed

Kishanpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2022A482/4334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the application to quash criminal proceedings under sections 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO for alleged harassment. Instead, the Court directed the applicant to file a discharge application within 15 days, promising expeditious disposal by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash was refused. The applicant was directed to file a discharge application within 15 days.

Kishanpal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4334 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kishanpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present petition has been filed for quashing charge-sheet dated 27.8.2020 in S.C. No.268 of 2021, case crime No.1110 of 2020 and all consequential proceedings arising out of charge sheet, under sections 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Civil Lines, district Moradabad.

¶7

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

¶8

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

However, it is provided that in case, the applicant moves an appropriate application for discharge before the concerned Court below within a period of fifteen days from today, the

¶12

same shall be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, by the concerned Court below preferably within a period of one month thereafter.

¶13

The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application under section 205 CrPC for exemption of appearance along with the discharge application. In case such application for exemption is filed, the same shall be considered prior to taking up discharge application.

¶14

In case no such application is filed within a period of fifteen days from today, as prescribed above, the benefit of present order shall not be available to the applicants.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 20.9.2022 kkb.

¶17

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL Date: 2022.09.20 17:21:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kishanpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishanpal 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

Salman and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Mohammad Meraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Premvati Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sitaram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arif and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another