Partly allowed

Goverdhan and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024A227/4607/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court refused to set aside the cognizance order and judgment of the trial court as they involved disputed facts beyond its supervisory jurisdiction. However, the Court granted the petitioner a stay on coercive measures for 30 days and liberty to apply for discharge.

What did the court decide?

Discharge application can be filed within 30 days; no coercive measures against petitioners during this period or till discharge application disposal.

Goverdhan and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118948

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4607 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Goverdhan And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kapil Tiwari 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 allow the misc. petition of the petitioners and set aside the impugned Judgement and Orders dated 17.2.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 2, Budaun in Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2023 as well as cognizance order dated 30.05.2019 passed by learned Judicial magistrate, 2nd Budaun in Criminal Case No. 1114 of 2019 (State vs. Yadram and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 427, 283, 504, 326 IPC, Section 2/3 Public Property Damages Act, 1984 and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun.

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

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date : - 25.7.2024 Puspendra

¶14

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

Goverdhan and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goverdhan and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Amandeep Singh Alias Sonu Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Rajbhar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Bhupendra Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others

Ajay and Another vs State of Up Others