Remanded

Sarvesh Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2024A482/10323/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted interim protection under Section 482 Cr.P.C., staying the effect of the impugned summoning order and processes issued against the applicants pending further observation after notice to the opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite party no.2; stay on effect of impugned summoning order and processes qua the present applicants.

Sarvesh Kumar and Others vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10323 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 25.01.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)A.C.J.M., Court No.20, Barabanki and order dated 22.08.2024 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.211 of 2020.

¶8

3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the instant application during the course of day.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2 against the applicants in order to harass them, after having lost a series of civil litigations between the parties, a copy of which is available at page nos.49 to 58 of the instant application, in the form of an order for

¶10

mutation, an appeal filed against the same and a revision filed thereafter, as well as a declaratory suit filed by opposite party No. 2, which ultimately got dismissed. He, thus, submits that recourse was taken to an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by opposite party No. 2 solely to subvert the consistent findings against him given by the revenue courts, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. In order to substantiate his aforesaid submission, he has drawn the attention of this Court to annexures Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the instant application. Though, no prima facie no offence is disclosed against the applicants, despite this fact, applicants have been summoned to face the trial which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

¶11

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants. However, he could not dispute the factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

6. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and keeping in view the submissions advanced by them, the matter requires consideration.

¶13

7. Issue notice to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

¶14

8. Steps be taken within a week.

¶15

9. Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks.

¶16

10. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶17

11. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶18

12. Meanwhile, impugned summoning order dated 25.01.2022 and any process issued, pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants only.

¶19

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) Order Date :- 19.11.2024 A.Dewal

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarvesh Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko 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

Adesh Singh @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Farzana Tabassum Rahmani ( in Fir Farzana Tabassum) vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mahesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Diksha Kumari @ Diksha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Bechelal Gautam and others vs state of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and another

Virendra Verma and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another