Disposed

Surendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2022A482/6278/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings alleging routine charge-sheeting and illegal warrant issuance. The court refused quashing due to prima facie case and late filing, directing expedited hearing of bail/warrant cancellation within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; applicant directed to approach lower court within 15 days for bail or warrant cancellation; application to be decided expeditiously.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6278 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Awtar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing of entire proceedings including the charge-sheet dated 17.02.2016, the cognizance order dated 03.05.2016 and the non-bailable warrants order dated 18.12.2021 in criminal case No.1586/2016 (State vs. Surendra and others), case crime no.0056/2016, under Sections 435, 506 IPC, P.S. Dohrighat, District Mau, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report of this case was lodged after two years of incident and charge-sheet has been submitted by police in a routine manner without proper investigation. It has further been submitted that order dated 18.12.2021 by which, non-bailable warrants have been issued against applicant is against law. It was further stated that applicant is willing to appear before the court below and he may be granted some interim protection for enabling him to appear before the court below and apply for bail.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the application.

¶9

So far as the impugned cognizance order dated 03.05.2016 is

¶10

concerned, it is apparent that instant application has been filed after about eight years of that order. Further, no material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order dated 03.05.2016. Perusal of first information report and material collected during investigation shows a prima facie case is made out against applicant. Hence prayer for quashing of proceedings including charge-sheet and summoning order is refused.

¶11

Considering the facts of the matter, the instant application is disposed of with direction that in case, applicant approaches the court below within a period of 15 days from today for cancellation of non-bailable warrants or surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants/bail application, as the case may be, shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 Neeraj

¶14

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.28 16:57:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra 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

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P. and Others

Km. Seeta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dhani Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Siddharth Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh @ Saurabh Saini Vs State of U.P.and Another

Nazma Khatoon and 4 Others Vs State of U.P and Another