Disposed

Shashi Shekhar Pandey v. State of Up

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024A482/2316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, a charge-sheeted accused in a criminal case involving land disputes, sought quashing of proceedings. The Court connected the application with a co-accused's matter where interim protection was already granted, extended interim protection to the applicant by directing no coercive action, and listed the matter for filing counter affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted; no coercive action to be taken against the applicant until further orders. Matter listed for hearing after filing of counter affidavits.

Shashi Shekhar Pandey vs State of Up — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2316 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Shashi Shekhar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sadhana Dubey,Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Suresh Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Charge sheeted accused/applicant Shashi Shekhar Pandey has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶8

" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased-

¶9

1. to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 37750 of 2023 State Versus Bahadur and others arising out of case crime No.0271 of 2023, under section 143, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police StationMughalsarai, District-Chandauli.

¶10

2. To quash the charge sheet dated 27.09.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 08.12.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Criminal Case No. 37750 of 2023 State Versus Bahadur and others arising out of case crime No.0271 of 2023, under section 143, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Mughalsarai, DistrictChandauli.

¶11

3.To stay the further proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order

¶12

dated 08.12.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Criminal Case No. 37750 of 2023 State Versus Bahadur and others arising out of case crime No.0271 of 2023, under section 143, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Mughalsarai, District-Chandauli

¶13

4. To issue any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. "

¶14

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that 12 co-accused have approached this court by means of Criminal Misc. Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2712 of 24 (Bahadur and 11 another Vs. State of U.P. and another) wherein this Court passed an interim order dated 14.05.2024. For ready reference the order dated 14.05.2024 is reproduced herein below:

¶15

"1. Heard counsel for the applicants, Sri Suresh Kumar Yadav, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1.

¶16

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 27.09.2023 as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 08.12.2023 and the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 37750 of 2023 (State vs. Bahadur and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0271 of 2023, under Sections 143, 420, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Mughalsarai, DistrictChandauli.

¶17

3. Counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 belong to the same family. Both the parties are claiming rights on the disputed land. Proceedings under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 numbered as 1784 of 2024 (Computerized No. T202414180401784) are pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Varanasi Mandal, District- Chandauli, Tehshil- Mughalsarai and on 23.02.2024, an order of status quo has been passed. The instant proceedings have been instituted only for the purposes of harassment.

¶18

4. Matter requires consideration.

¶19

5. Opposite parties are granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶20

6. Place this case in the additional cause list on 19.07.2024.

¶21

7. Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. "

¶22

On the basis of above, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that present application be heard alongwith aforementioned application. In the interregnum, liberty of present applicant be also protected as the benefit of interim protection has already been extended in favour of co-accused.

¶23

In view of above, connect this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with aforementioned application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2712 of 2024 (Bahadur and 11 another Vs. State of U.P. and another).

¶24

Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A. Mr. Suresh Kumar Yadav, has put in appearance on behalf of first informant/opposite party-2. They pray for and are granted four weeks time to file their respective counter affidavits. Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavits.

¶25

List this application after expiry of aforesaid period alongwith connected matter.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and coupled with the fact that interim protection has already been extended by this Court in favour of co-accused in aforementioned application,

¶27

therefore, as an interim measure, it is provided that until further orders of this Court, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant by court below.

¶28

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 YK

¶29

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shashi Shekhar Pandey v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Shekhar Pandey v. State of Up

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

Similar cases

Yogendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Jaywati vs State of U.P. and Another

Firari Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs State of Up Others

Ambrish Pathak @ Sintoo Pathak vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Kumar Kannaujiya vs State of U.P.