Disposed

Bal Govind and 3 Others v. State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024A482/10627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicants to file a discharge application within four weeks through counsel. No coercive steps were to be taken during the pending discharge application unless the applicants failed to file within the limit.

What did the court decide?

Applicants permitted to file discharge application within four weeks; no coercive steps during pendency.

Bal Govind and 3 Others vs State of. U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78631

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10627 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bal Govind And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the Chargesheet No.A-NIL/2019 dated 20.02.2019, arising out of N.C.R. No. - 212/2017, under section 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Bahraich as well as Summoning order dated 26.04.2024 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, in Case No. 8508/2024, 'State Vs Bal Govind & others'.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that NCR No.212 of 2017 was lodged on 02.12.2017, thereafter, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer under Sections 323 and 504 IPC on 20.02.2019 but the same was placed before the Magistrate on 26.04.2024 after about six years. He further submits that as per the provisions of Section 468 of CrPC, in case, offences are punishable up to three years, then the cognizance must be taken by the Magistrate on the police report within a period of three years. He further submits that does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants may be permitted to move discharge application through counsel and suitable directions may be issued for expeditious disposal of the same.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of aforesaid prayer.

¶10

In view of above, it is provided that applicants permitted to move their discharge application(s) through counsel within four weeks' from today and in case any such application(s) are being filed, same shall be heard and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order.

¶11

Till the aforesaid period of four weeks' and during pendency of discharge application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶12

In case of failure on the part of applicants in moving the discharge application(s) within the aforesaid period, they will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶13

With above directions, this application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 27.11.2024 V. Sinha

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bal Govind and 3 Others v. State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Govind and 3 Others v. State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Vijaya Nand Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shankar Lal (in the Chargesheet Shankar Singh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Prince Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Homes Lko. and Another

Manish Kumar Maurya vs Deepak Kumar Singh, Circle Officer P.S-Mishrikh Sitapur

Mohd. Kalim Ayyubi vs Mr. P. Guruprasad Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. Deptt.of Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Shivam Dubey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Anothers