Disposed

Smt. Vartika Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024A482/17692/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicants sought to quash criminal proceedings alleging false implication in a civil land demarcation dispute. The court accepted the State's notice, directed the second opposite party to show cause, and granted a stay on coercive action against the applicants until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite party no. 2; subsequent affidavits and rejoinders allowed; coercive action against applicants stayed until the next date of listing.

Smt. Vartika Gupta and 4 Others vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17692 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Vartika Gupta And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh,Sushil Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature which has been given colour of a criminal case. It is argued that the dispute between the parties is with regards to demarcation of land. Even otherwise the allegation is of selling of excess land which in no manner would attract any criminal liability. It is argued that a suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the applicants in which the court concerned has passed an order granting interim injunction on application 6-C vide order dated 27.2.2023, copy of the same has been placed before the Court which is on page 204 of the paper book. While placing para 6 of the affidavit, it has been argued that the applicants have no criminal history. The proceedings as initiated are abuse of process of Court.

¶7

Matter requires consideration.

¶8

Notice on behalf of State of U.P./Opposite Party no. 1 has been accepted by learned counsel for the State.

¶9

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 returnable within six weeks.

¶10

Opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavit, if any, within the said period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within three weeks thereafter.

¶11

Let the matter be listed on 16.10.2024.

¶12

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants-Smt. Vartika Gupta, Smt. Gunjaj Sachdeva,

¶13

Smt. Neetan, Smt. Balpreet Kaur and Smt. Guljeet Kaur Anand in Criminal Case No.4977 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 251 of 2022), u/s 420, 120-B, 447 IPC, P.S. Biharigarh, District Saharanpur (State Vs. Merajuddin and others) pending in the court of JM, 3rd, Saharanpur.

¶14

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Gaurav Kuls

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Vartika Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vartika Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Gayatri Devi vs Rahul Yadav, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad

Hari Singh vs Sri. Vinit Mishra, S.D.O. and Another

Punjab National Bank vs Shri Rajendra Kumar, Estate Manager

Sharad Kumar Rastogi HUF vs Principal Commissioner of Income Allahabad and 2 Others

Dheeraj Pal vs State of Up and 7 Others

Soory Karan Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 11 Others