Disposed¶13

Dilip Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jun 2023A482/16086/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application; Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Sections 26(2)(i)(ii), 59(i), 52(1); Complaint Case No. 1049 of 2017; summoning order dated 20.04.2017; non-appearance of accused no. 2; non-bailable warrant order dated 16.01.2023; separation of trial under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C.; Dilip Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another; Rajeev Misra, J.; order dated 14.6.2023; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:126727; application disposed of finally with liberty to seek trial separation.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of finally with liberty to the applicant to approach the court below and seek separation of his trial by filing an application under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. ¶13

Dilip Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126727

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16086 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1049 of 2017 (State Vs. Dilip Kumar Gupta and Others), under Sections 26(2)(i)(ii), 59(i) and 52(1) of the Food Safety and Standsards Act, 2006 Police Station-Lohta, District-Varanasi.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant was summoned in aforementioned complaint case vide summoning order dated 20.04.2017. In compliance of above order dated 20.04.2017, applicant duly appeared before court below and has also been enlarged on bail. However, accused no. 2 has not yet appeared before court below on account of which, the proceedings of trial has remained held up. He has then invited the attention of Court to the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by court below whereby non-bailable warrant has been issued against accused no. 2. On the above premise, he submits that since applicant is being unduly harassed, therefore, the entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case insofar as they relate to the applicant be quashed by this Court.

¶10

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. submits that for the facts noted above, remedy of the applicant is to file an application under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. seeking separation of trial regarding him. In view of above, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that

¶12

no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this application pending. Remedy of applicant is to approach court below and seek separation of trial in terms of Section 317(2) Cr.P.C.

¶13

Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally with liberty to applicant to approach court below and seek separation of his trial by filing an application under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.6.2023 Vinay

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilip Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Niranjan @ Roopi Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Janakraj Vs State of U.P.