Disposed

Rampal Sharma v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024A227/5432/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that Article 227 cannot be exercised to adjudicate disputed facts in a criminal revision. The petition to set aside orders is dismissed, but the petitioner is granted 30 days to file a discharge application without facing coercive measures, on condition the trial court passes a reasoned order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; 30 days granted to move for discharge without coercive measures conditional on a reasoned trial court order.

Rampal Sharma vs State of Up and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152624

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5432 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rampal Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Puneet Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.C. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 17.2.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2020 (Rampal Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Another) and cognizance order dated 17.11.2015 as well as charge sheet dated 28.4.2015 in Case No. 15524 of 2015 (State vs. Kripal Singh & Others) under Sections 406, 447, 427 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 395 of 2012, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh.

¶7

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.

¶8

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is refused.

¶9

However, in view of the submissions, it is provided that in case the petitioner moves 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.

¶10

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 petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date : - 19.9.2024 Puspendra

¶13

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

Rampal Sharma v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Jahangir Chauhan vs State of Up and Another

Manish Saroj vs State of Up and 2 Others

Iima Bano and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Vaibhav Gupta and Another vs State of Up and Another

Mashuk Ali vs State of Up and 14 Others

Jograj vs State of U.P. and 4 Others