Dismissed

Sub Inspector Adil Rashid Khan (the Then S.O. Nanora) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2022A482/6263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that no abuse of process of court was evident and mandating disposal of a pending discharge application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; directive to dispose pending discharge application within three months.

Sub Inspector Adil Rashid Khan (the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6263 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sub Inspector Adil Rashid Khan (The Then S.O. Nanora) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hesamuddin Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 899 of 2012 (State vs. Adil Rashid Khan), arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2002, under Sections 343, 193, 427 IPC as well as Charge-sheet dated 19.09.2005, P.S. Nanora, District Bulandshahr.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was posted as SHO in P.S. Nanora, District Bulandshahr. Four trucks wood of Khair has been recovered from the the possession of the applicant. It is also submitted that main allegations against the applicant is that the applicant has torned all original documents. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant is that in the order dated 29.10.1997 it appears that all the original papers were send before the trial court while passing the said order.

¶8

From perusal of record, it is apparent that on 14.11.2018 order for charge has been passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr as there is sufficient material for framing charge against the applicant and found no good ground to discharge the applicant, against which, no revision has been filed by the applicant. Applicant has moved an application dated 19.12.2018 for discharge, which is still pending. It is not a fit case in which inherent power should be exercised in favour of the applicant.

¶9

The matter relates to the year 2002 and till now charge has not been framed. There appears no abuse of process of court. The court shall dispose of the application dated 19.12.2018 filed by the applicant, within a period of three months in accordance with law.

¶10

Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected .

¶11

Order Date :- 13.7.2022 v.k.updh.

¶12

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY Date: 2022.07.16 16:12:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sub Inspector Adil Rashid Khan (the Then S.O. Nanora) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sub Inspector Adil Rashid Khan (the Then S.O. Nanora) 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

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S. D. Pauls Capital Limited and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Mannan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another