Dismissed

Gobind Rai @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024/161/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order framing charges. The court held that the accused was present during the proceedings and the Bar Association resolution did not grant an exemption from judicial works. The petitioner retained remedies at a subsequent stage.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order framing charges was dismissed.

Gobind Rai @ Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2629

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 161 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gobind Rai @ Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Harpreet Singh,Anuj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

2. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/ F.T.C.-II, Lucknow may be quashed/ set aside relating to Case Crime No.485 of 2022, under Sections 493 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Chinhat, Distict-Lucknow East, whereby the charge under Section 376 & 506 I.P.C. has been framed.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though the accused-applicant was present before the Court on 30.11.2023 but on account of the resolution of the Bar Association dated 30.11.2023 his counsel was not present, so the petitioner has not been afforded an ample opportunity of hearing at the time of framing the charge.

¶10

4. The perusal of the resolution of the Bar Association dated 30.11.2023 reveals that the request has been pressed before the learned District & Sessions Judge and the other subordinate officers to convey the condolences of the Members of the Bar to the family members of the Advocate Sri Subham Shukla who died on account of heart attack. This resolution does not say that the Advocates would be abstaining from judicial works on that date. Even otherwise, the accused-applicant was present before the Court when the charge was framed, therefore, it may not be said that he has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing at the time of framing of charge. If the accusedapplicant was willing to get his case adjourned on that date, a specific request on his behalf could have been made before the court concerned on 23.11.2023 itself. Further, the order dated 30.11.2023 reveals that the counsel for the accused-applicant was also present and this fact may not be disbelieved only on the basis of the arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶11

petitioner.

¶12

5. It is needless to say that even if the charge has been framed against the petitioner and he has got ample material/ evidences to convince the court that he has not committed offence in question, he may adopt/ take reasonable remedies at the subsequent stage as per law and if such remedies are availed, the same may be considered and decided by the learned court concerned, strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶13

6. So far as the quashing of the order dated 30.11.2023 is concerned, I do not find any good ground to quash / set aside the aforesaid order while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C..

¶14

7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

¶15

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 Suresh/

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gobind Rai @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobind Rai @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satish Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gopal Singh Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Vishal Saxsena and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Asjadullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko. and Another

Satnam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another