Dismissed¶11

Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2023A482/29592/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; application for further investigation; rejection of further investigation; injury report details not mentioned; opinion of doctor not considered; examination of doctor during trial; curbing frivolous and uncalled-for litigation; Ramarameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249; Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 others; order dated 22.4.2022; dismissed on 24.3.2023; Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned rejecting the application for further investigation. ¶10

Kamlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29592 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kamlesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Samar Nath Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagadeesh Prasad Chaurasiya

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the validity of order dated 22.4.2022, vide which application for further investigation has been rejected.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the injury report has been placed but the details have not been mentioned by the Investigating Officer, the opinion of the doctor has also not been taken into consideration, therefore, the matter may be further investigated.

¶7

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State submit that while rejecting the application, the court concerned has passed a reasoned order stating therein that all these documents can be placed at the time of evidence and the doctor may also be examined during the course of trial, therefore, it cannot be said that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper manner.

¶8

The Supreme Court in the case of Ramarameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 , has observed to curb the uncalled for and frivolous litigation, which is quoted hereinbelow:

¶9

"43. ... We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases."

¶10

There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.

¶11

The application is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.3.2023 DS

¶13

Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Pinki @ Yogesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahab Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surajpal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayank Katheriya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another