Disposed

Rakesh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023/3793/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the High Court allowed the applicants to file a discharge application in the trial court within 30 days, directing the trial court to decide within a further 30 days, noting that the matter did not require a mini-trial by the High Court.

What did the court decide?

The application is disposed of by allowing the applicants liberty to move discharge in the trial court within 30 days. The trial court shall decide within a further 30 days.

Rakesh and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:62541

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3793 of 2011

¶4

Applicant :- Rakesh And Ors. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the State and perused the the material placed on record.

¶7

The applicant has sought following prayers :-

¶8

"This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 07.02.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20 Sultanpur and further stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 07.02.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Sultanpur and proceeding of case crime no. 258 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366, 120 B of IPC, Police Station Kurwar District Sultanpur pending before the ACJ, Court No. 20 Sultanpur."

¶9

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that there are material discrepancies in the prosecution story as contrary to the fact that the prosecutrix was major and her statement under section 164 does not support the prosecution version, the matter is proceeding against the applicant. He submits that once the statement of the prosecutrix is taken to be correct, then the criminal proceeding against the present applicants would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the submission is that the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶10

On the other hand, the learned counsel, appearing for the State submits that the factual dispute is being raised before this Court, and examining the evidences and the witnesses would amount to mini trial, which is impermissible under the law and therefore, the contention of the applicants has no force at all and thus, the instant application deserves to be dismissed.

¶11

After the aforesaid argument, the counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he may be permitted to move discharge

¶12

application through counsel before the trial Court concerned, and if, such an application is filed, the trial Court may decide the same within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this court.

¶13

The learned counsel for the State has no objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid submission, the applicants are at liberty to move discharge application through counsel before the trial Court concerned within a period of 30 days and if, such an application is moved, the trial Court shall decide the same within a further period of 30 days.

¶15

However, if the applicants does not move discharge application through counsel within the aforesaid period, this order shall stand revoked and no benefit of this order shall accrue to them.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation, the instant application is disposed of .

¶17

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶18

Consigned to record.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 Anurag

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh and Ors. 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

Abrar Khan Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Ram Suresh Gupta and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Smt. Gudia Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Israr Ahmad Alias Lallan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Sultanpur and Another

Sursati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Taaz Mohammad and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.