Disposed

Shweta Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2024A482/23171/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Allahabad deleted wrongly impleaded opposite parties. The Court directed expeditious disposal of the underlying case within one year and coordinated with police authorities without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Deleted wrongly impleaded parties; directed trial court to dispose case within one year.

Shweta Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 6… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:161794

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

*********

(Sl. No.15)

Court No. - 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23171 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Shweta Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶9

1.On an oral request of learned counsel for the applicant, the opposite party nos.3 to 7 in the instant application who has wrongly been impleaded in the instant application as the summoning order has been passed only against the opposite party no.2. Therefore, the names of opposite party nos.3 to 7 are deleted from the array of the parties.

¶10

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uday Bhan, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had filed a complaint case on 21.10.2021 and the summoning order was issued on 22.04.2022 against the opposite party No.2 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, since, thereafter, repeatedly summon was issued and opposite party no.2 was not appearing before the trial court despite repeated summons issued. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for a direction for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid case so that effective measures can be taken by the trial court.

¶12

The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by the learned A.G.A. and looking to the fact that despite repeated summons issued, opposite party no.2 did not appear before the trial court concerned till date.

¶13

In view thereof, this Court does not find any good reason to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 and keep the matter pending.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without adverting to the merits of the case, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with a direction to the concerned trial court to proceed in the mater expeditiously in accordance with law and the police authorities are also directed to cooperate in the trial to carry out the mandate issued by the trial court. The trial court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the instant case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, it there is no other legal impediment.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.10.2024 Mini

¶16

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shweta Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shweta Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

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

Shubhant Yadav @ Salil Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Shoreen and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalti Devi vs State of Up and 6 Others

Pravin Kumar @ Pravin Rao and Another vs State of Up and Another

Kanti Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another