Dismissed

Umesh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2022A482/6248/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging proceedings from 2012. The applicant challenged the delay of nearly nine years but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the belated filing, rendering the application liable to be dismissed on grounds of laches.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on the ground of failure to explain the inordinate delay.

Umesh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6248 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Syed Abid Ali, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Tushar Krishlani, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party-Torrent Power Limited and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA, for the State, and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of the present application the applicant challenged the proceedings of Case No. 286 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.1020 of 2012, under Section 135 Electricity Act, Police Station Sadar, District Agra pending in the court of Special Judge (Electricity Act), Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the FIR of the present case is of the year 2012 and cognizance was taken after submission of charge sheet in the year 2013 but as applicant could not become aware about the pendency of the present proceeding, therefore, he could not earlier knocked the door of this Court and when applicant came to know about the pendency of the present case then now he is challenging the proceeding of the case by way of present application.

¶8

At this stage, learned counsel for the oppositeparty/Torrent Power Limited and the learned AGA raised an objection that the cognizance order and the proceeding of the case has been challenged by applicant through the instant application after about nine years and applicant failed to properly explain the delay and, therefore, on the ground of laches itself present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶10

Admittedly, the FIR of the present case was lodged on 17.11.2012 and charge sheet was submitted against applicant on 8.1.2013, thus, applicant knocked the door of this Court after more than 9 years, although applicant in paragraph no.13 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the present application made averment that he could not become aware about the pendency of the aforesaid case and when local police visited his house then he came to know about the pendency of the present matter.

¶11

The averment made in paragraph no.13 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the application is cryptic one and has been made in most causal manner, therefore, I am not inclined to accept the explanation. As the present application has been filed by applicant after about 9 years from the date of taking cognizance and applicant failed to properly explain the delay, therefore, on this

¶12

ground, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.7.2022 SKM

¶15

Digitally signed by SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.07.21 10:12:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umesh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shambhu Tiwari and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Udayveer Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faiz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar @ Ramu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahvej and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another