Held that an unreasoned summoning order from 1984 and proceedings involving 39-year-old delay and aged/deceased applicants are quashable under Section 482 CrPC without remanding the matter.
The impugned summoning order dated 12.10.1984 and proceedings pending before the court below were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:82649
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2102 of 2007
Applicant :- G.N. Bansal And 2 Ors. A482 1694/1985 Of Allahabad Opposite Party :- U.P.Pollution Control Board And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- N. Lal,Amit Chaudhary,Dileep Singh,Rajesh Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- H.N. Tripathi,Ashok Kumar Verma,Sudhir Pande
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
years. He also does not dispute that the impugned summoning order is an unreasoned order. However, he submits that, in case, the impugned order is set aside, the matter may be remanded back to the court.
Order Date :- 15.12.2023 VKS
Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning order and proceedings under Section 482 CrPC are liable to be quashed given the age of the applicants and the passage of time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline LimitedReferred¶9
GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505 · Who else cites this
G.N. Bansal And 2 Ors.
U.P. Pollution Control Board
Rajeev Singh
Vivek Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
