Dismissed

Surendra Kumar Pathak and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 May 2023A482/37226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court held that alternative remedies existed under the Criminal Procedure Code, making quashing of proceedings inappropriate. The application was disposed of, granting a 30-day extension from coercive action pending discharge.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; applicants granted 30 days from this date to file an application for discharge in the trial court, with no coercive action during this period.

Surendra Kumar Pathak and 3 Others… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104605

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37226 of 2022 Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Pathak And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh,Pravin Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 11480 of 2022 (State vs. Surendra Kumar Pathak and others), arising out of the Case Crime No. 90 of 2021, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Pipri, district Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 have opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

Under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants have alternative remedy to get themselves discharged before trial court. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

In view of above, the prayer for quashing entire proceedings of aforesaid special sessions trial is hereby refused.

¶11

Accordingly, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶12

However, learned trial court is directed that if applicants submit appropriate application for discharge within thirty days from today, the same shall be decided within thirty days from the date of presentation of application by speaking order.

¶13

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

Order Date :- 15.5.2023 sailesh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Kumar Pathak and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Pathak and 3 Others 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

Surendra Nath Tripathi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotey Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Latif and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Shrivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepika Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another