Dismissed

Ram Prasad Soni and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024A482/23972/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Charge-sheeted accused sought quashing of a bailable warrant under Section 482 CrPC. The State objected that the applicants' earlier Section 482 application had already been finally disposed of and their time-extension application rejected. The Court found the objection borne out by record and dismissed the application as not maintainable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Prasad Soni and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:158729

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23972 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Prasad Soni And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. R.P. Yadav, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Applicants Ram Prasad Soni and three others, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court with the following prayer:-

¶8

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the bailable warrant order dated 21.03.2024 in case No. 6948 of 2023 arising out of case crime no. 03 of 2023 Under sections 419, 420, 406, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Chhawani, District Basti pending in the court of ACJM-II, Basti and grant him 15 days time for protection before the court below otherwise the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that applicant 1 had earlier approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. No. 30315 of 2023 (Ram Prasad and three others), which was disposed of finally, vide order dated 22.11.2023. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein below:-

¶10

"Ref: Order on Criminal Misc. (Time Extension) Application No.2 of 2023

¶11

Applicant's counsel has filed this time extension application for extension of time for a period of 15 days in the present case.

¶12

No good ground found for extension of time, hence, the present time extension application is rejected."

¶13

On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. contends that remedy lies to the applicant to file a time extension application in aforementioned application. As such, the present application is not

¶14

maintainable.

¶15

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant had filed a time extension application, which was rejected by Court concerned, vide order dated 22.11.2023.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. to this application is borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants.

¶17

As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.9.2024 HSM

¶20

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Prasad Soni and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Prasad Soni and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gaurav Falaixi vs State of Up and Another

Yusuf and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Juber Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Firoz Alias Bhura vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Dillan Kha vs State of U.P. and Another