Dismissed

Kapil Muni Karwariya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023A482/38832/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dealt with an application to quash lower court orders. The court held that an interim order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. passed in 2002 lapsed without extension after six months per Supreme Court law, rendering it inoperative. Consequently, arguments relying on a subsequent 2022 Supreme Court order could not revive the lapsed order, and the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The instant application was dismissed; it was left open for applicants to seek relief in the pending application U/S 482 No. 11407 of 2002.

Kapil Muni Karwariya and 3 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38832 of 2022 Applicant :- Kapil Muni Karwariya And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ankit Srivastava learned AGA for the State.

¶4

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 30.7.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Case Crime No. 90 of 2002 under Sections 420, 379, 411 IPC and under Rule 3/57 of the U.P. Mines Mineral (Concession)Rules, 1963 in respect of applicant No. 1 and to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order and the order dated 30.7.2022 in respect of applicant Nos. 2 to 4.

¶5

Submission is, in view of further order of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 44 0 dated 25.4.2022, the original interim protection granted by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 11407 of 2002, Kapil Muni Karwaria Vs. State of U.P. and Others, dated 13.12.2002 continues to have force. The learned court below has erred in rejecting the application of the applicant to keep the proceedings in abeyance. Also, it has been submitted, the learned court below has made wrong appraisal of the above order of the Supreme Court.

¶6

On the other hand, learned AGA would submit, the only exception that may have been carved out by the Supreme Court in the order referred to by learned counsel for the applicant would be an order passed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶7

India. Inasmuch as the interim order relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant was passed not under Article 226 of the Constitution but under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the benefit being claimed is not available to the applicants. The fact that no stay vacation application has been filed in the pending application and no specific order may have been passed, may not be of any avail to the applicant in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, harsh as it may appear, it cannot be disputed that the interim order passed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not survive beyond six months unless extended by reasons to be recorded by the Court. Undisputedly, the order dated 13.12.2002 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 11407 of 2002 has not been extended till date. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, no interim order exists.

¶9

The exception claimed on the strength of the subsequent order passed by the Supreme Court dated 25.4.2022, is not available to the applicant as the interim order dated 13.12.2002 being referred to was passed in exercise of statutory powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and not under the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

Accordingly, the instant application fails and is dismissed . It is however left open to the applicants to seek appropriate relief in the pending Application U/S 482 No. 11407 of 2002.

¶11

Order Date :- 20.1.2023/Faraz

¶12

Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kapil Muni Karwariya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Muni Karwariya 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangal Ahirwar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Vikash Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bobby Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Agrawal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Bupendra Kumar Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another