Partly allowed

Kanchan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2023A482/27037/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to correct prayer clause details and seek time-bound disposal under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court allowed the correction. It subsequently dismissed the main application for time-bound disposal as misconceived because an accused had not appeared warrant issued and witness statements not recorded.

What did the court decide?

Correction in prayer clause allowed; Application for time-bound disposal dismissed as misconceived.

Kanchan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 66 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27037 of 2022 Applicant :- Kanchan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kirt Raj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Kirt Raj Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶4

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that he be permitted to correct the description of Complaint Case in prayer clause of this application giving rise to this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

¶5

Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A.

¶6

It is, accordingly, allowed.

¶7

Let necessary correction in the prayer clause of this application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to Judicial Magistrate/FTC (Women), Azamgarh to decide Case No. 1460 of 2017 (Kanchan Yadav Vs. Rajesh Kumar Yadav), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Saraimir, District Azamgarh within a time bound period fixed by this Court.

¶9

At the very out learned A.G.A. submits that one of the accused namely Rajesh Kumar Yadav (husband) of the applicant has not yet appeared before the Court below and therefore non-bailable warrant has been issued against him. On account of above, no statement of any witness could be recorded till date. On the aforesaid premise, he submits that present application is misconceived at this stage.

¶10

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶11

In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed as misconceive at this stage.

¶12

It is, accordingly, dismissed as misconceived at this stage.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.1.2023/HSM

¶14

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kanchan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Chandan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nischay Rana Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalua and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxmi Narayan Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another