Disposed

Vinod and 10 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024A227/3431/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking quashing of a summoning order. The High Court could not adjudicate disputed facts but refused the quashing prayer, directing the Trial Court to decide any discharge application within two weeks and imposing a 30-day stay on coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash refused; discharge application to be decided within two weeks; coercive measures stayed for 30 days.

Vinod and 10 Others vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115513

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3431 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinod And 10 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue an order or direction under supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court setting aside/quash the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Session Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCsO) Court No. 1, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2023 (Vinod and others vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as summoning order dated 01.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed in Complaint Case No. 22612 of 2022 (Devendra vs. Vinod and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504,506, 427 IPC, Police Station Pachokhara, District Firozabad, pending to the Court of learned Judicial Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad (Annexure No. 1 and 2 of the petition).

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that 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.

¶9

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the submissions, it is provided that in case the petitioners move an application for discharge through counsel within 30 days, the same shall be disposed of by the Trial Court by

¶11

a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.

¶12

For a period of 30 days or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.7.2024 Puspendra

¶15

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

Vinod and 10 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod and 10 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prem Nath vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhumi vs State of Up

Vindhyachal Maurya and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Devanshi Saxena vs State of Up and 5 Others

Meraj vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Aysha and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others