Disposed

Dr. Sanjeev Singh @ Sanjeev Kuma Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2023A482/14130/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings alleging malafide prosecution, the High Court refused to quash the case. It granted the applicant permission to move a discharge application, directing the trial court to decide it expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings refused. Order directed the Trial Court to consider the discharge application filed within two weeks and decide it expeditiously within three months.

Dr. Sanjeev Singh @ Sanjeev Kuma Singh Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148984

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14130 of 2023 Applicant :- Dr. Sanjeev Singh @ Sanjeev Kuma Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate holding brief of Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 29.12.2022 and order dated 5.1.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 187 of 2023, arising out of case crime no.1052 of 2022, under section 307 & 504 IPC, Police Station- Kasya, District- Kushi Nagar.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings including charge sheet dated 29.12.2022, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is on bail, therefore, he may be permitted to move discharge application before the court concerned and prayed that a direction may be issued to decide the same at the earliest.

¶10

Considering the request of the applicant and in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicant appears and moves an appropriate application for discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. before the Trial court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order then the application of the applicant shall be considered and decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of discharge application in accordance with law.

¶11

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Junaid

¶13

Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Sanjeev Singh @ Sanjeev Kuma Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sanjeev Singh @ Sanjeev Kuma Singh 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

Mahboob Khan Vs State of U.P and 4 Others

Shailendra Dixit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Arkan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashish Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another