Dismissed

Rahul Agarwal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sachivalaya Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2023/8301/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application filed by himself against the State, claiming malafide intent. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding it was not maintainable as it sought interference with the Magistrate's jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed without prejudice to other remedies.

Rahul Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:71682-DB

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8301 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sachivalaya Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agendra Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:-

¶7

"To issue a Writ of Mandamus or its likewise whereby directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, Kheri to dismiss the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by him with personal vendetta by abusing the process of law and creating unwanted litigation unnecessarily."

¶8

The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is a civil dispute between the parties only on account of which just to harass the petitioners and arm twist them into submission, opposite party no. 5 has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is malafide.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention and submits that this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶10

We fail to understand as to how in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we can issue a Mandamus directing the C.J.M., Lakhimpur Kheri to dismiss the application filed before him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that too, by the petitioners who are said to be accused in the said proceedings against whom the application has been filed. It is for the C.J.M. to look into the matter and do the needful as per law.

¶11

We see no reason to entertain this writ petition at this stage.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without prejudice to the rights, if any, of the petitioners to pursue other remedies, as may be prescribed in law.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.10.2023/Lokesh Kumar

¶14

[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶15

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Agarwal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sachivalaya Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Agarwal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sachivalaya Lko. and 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

Smt.Lalita Devi Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and Ors.

Raman Sahni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Arvind Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Sukh Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sanjay Prakash Rai Alias Sanjay Sherpuria Thru. Her Wife Smt. Kanchan Sanjay Prakash Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Ram Baran Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others