Partly allowed

Khalid Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2024A482/10465/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under the Air Act, the Court accepted notices, directed filing of a counter affidavit by the Pollution Control Board, and stayed the impugned summoning order qua the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Stay of execution of impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2017 or any process issued pursuant thereto qua the applicant; counter affidavit to be filed within six weeks.

Khalid Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10465 of 2024 Applicant :- Khalid Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Himanshu Tiwari,Mohd Agha Haider Rizvi,Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Asit Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, U.P. Pollution Control Board.

¶6

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying, inter alia , following reliefs :-

¶7

"1. To quash the complaint filed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board U/s 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 against the petitioner herein bearing Complaint Case No.44/2017.

¶8

To quash all the proceedings, including the summoning order dated 16.03.2017 and bailable warrant dated 21/08/2024, emanating from the complaint filed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board U/s 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 against the petitioner herein bearing Complaint Case No.44/2017."

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case for ulterior reasons to harass him and exert undue pressure upon him.

¶10

4. His further submission is that the present applicant had already transferred his interest prior to the filing of

¶11

the original complaint.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the applicant in Application U/s 482 No. 8007 of 2024 titled Tahir Ali Khan vs. State of U.P. and another, who had transferred his interest in the firm prior to the filing of the complaint, has already been granted protection by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024.

¶13

6. His further submission is that even M/s K.G.N. Stone Crusher through Partner and another has also been granted protection by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2018 passed in application U/s 482/ 378/ 407 No.3086 of 2018 titled M/s Stone Crusher through Partner and another vs. State of U.P. and another.

¶14

7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2017 deserves to be quashed insofar as the present applicant is concerned, as he has no subsisting interest in the matter and his case is akin to the aforesaid applicants, who have already been granted protection by the aforesaid orders.

¶15

8. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has submitted that the complaint was filed on the basis of cogent material and the impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2017 also came to be passed on the basis of material available on record before the learned trial court in a lawful manner. However, he has been unable to dispute the fact that the applicant in Application U/s 482 No. 8007 of 2024 titled Tahir Ali Khan vs. State of

¶16

U.P. and another and the applicant in application U/s 482/ 378/ 407 No.3086 of 2018 titled M/s Stone Crusher through Partner and another vs. State of U.P. and another, have already been granted protection by this Court vide orders dated 17.09.2024 and 18.05.2018, respectively, in a similar situation.

¶17

9. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, the matter requires consideration.

¶18

10. Notice on behalf of opposite party No.1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

¶19

11. Notice on behalf of opposite party No.2 has been accepted by Sri Asit Srivastava, Advocate.

¶20

12. Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks by the opposite party No.2.

¶21

13. List this case after six weeks alongwith Application U/s 482 No.8007 of 2024 titled Tahir Ali Khan vs. State of U.P. and another and U/s 482/ 378/ 407 No.3086 of 2018 titled M/s K.G.N. Stone Crusher through partner and another vs. Staet of U.P. and another.

¶22

14. Meanwhile, the impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2017 or any process issued pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicant.

¶23

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 cks/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Khalid Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

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

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

Firoz Varikkdan a Alias Firoz v a vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and 4 Others

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