Disposed

Gopal Shankar Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024A482/24738/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Non Bailable Warrant issued against the applicant who claimed no knowledge of proceedings. Court directed the applicant to appear and move an application for recall before the trial court, staying coercive action for 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Stayed coercive action for 15 days or till application for recall is moved, whichever is earlier.

Gopal Shankar Rai vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153277

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24738 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gopal Shankar Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh Yadav,Mahabir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the Non Bailable Warrant order dated 19.12.2023, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Eastern Railway) in Case No. 4075 of 2017, titled as State v. Mohd Guddu and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 3 of 2016, under Section 3/4 R.P.U.P. Act and Section 380, 413, 201 IPC, P.S. R.P.F Post Maduwadeeh, District Varanasi, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Eastern Railway) Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that impugned order is against the facts and law. The applicant had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated against him due to which he could not appear on the date fixed by the trial Court, hence, non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant.

¶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 applicant appears and move appropriate application before the trial Court for recalling the impugned order, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶11

For a period of 15 days or till the applicant move an application before the trial Court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 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 :- 20.9.2024 A. Tripathi

¶14

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶15

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

Gopal Shankar Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Shankar Rai 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

Shahjad @ Shajad vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohd Shamim @ Shamim @ Mulla vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Nirmala and Another vs State of Up and 4 Others

Surendra Kumar Singh vs State of Up and Another

Hari Prakash Rai vs State of U.P. and Another