Allowed

Kanhaiya Jaiswal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2024A482/24708/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an Section 482 application for quashing proceedings and a non-bailable warrant. The Court directed no coercive action against the applicant for 15 days or until they seek a hearing before the trial Court to have the impugned order set aside.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action to be taken against applicants for 15 days or till they move an application before the trial Court.

Kanhaiya Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:132244

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24708 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kanhaiya Jaiswal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 591 of 1998, titled as State v. Hasrat Khan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 76 of 1998, under Section 41, 42 of Forest Act and Section 379/411 IPC, P.S. Chakia Chandauli, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chakia, Chandauli as well as the execution of non bailable warrant 20.01.2005, issued against the applicants.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants submits that impugned order is against the facts and law. The applicants had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated against them due to which they could not appear on the date fixed by the trial Court, hence, non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicants.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A has opposed.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and move appropriate application before the trial Court for setting aside the impugned order, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of 15 days or till the applicants move an

¶11

application before the trial Court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. Further, the Court shall not entertain the fictitious and repetitive personal exemption application, and if filed, the same shall be dismissed with reasonable costs.

¶12

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 A. Tripathi

¶14

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kanhaiya Jaiswal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Jaiswal and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jiya Lal vs State of Up and Another

Ram Pukar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Nasruddin and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Prajapati vs State of U.P. and Another