Partly allowed

Arvind Kumar Shukla v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024A227/2178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 seeking quashing of orders, the court held that no prima facie case showed failure of justice warranting interference. The petition was dismissed, but bail was directed to be heard expeditiously if applied within four weeks, and coercive measures stayed for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; bail to be disposed of expeditiously if applied within 4 weeks; coercive measures stayed for 30 days.

Arvind Kumar Shukla vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116435

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2178 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 21.9.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Fatehpur (Arvind Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 08.01.2028 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 802 of 2017 (Aditya Kumar vs. Arvind Kumar Shukla) during the pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no interference is required.

¶10

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is refused.

¶11

However, considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner applies for bail before the concerned court within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar

¶12

Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶13

For a period of 30 days from today or till the time of applying the bail application before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶14

With the above observations, this petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Puspendra

¶16

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

Arvind Kumar Shukla v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Shukla v. State of Up 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr Tushar Kaloniya and Another vs State of Up and Another

Hoshiyar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kalamuddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrawan @ Sarwan vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajveer Singh vs State of Up and 5 Others