Dismissed

Surendra Nath Saxena Alias Sn Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024A482/32103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Charge-sheeted accused sought quashing of a chargesheet and cognizance/summons order under Section 482 CrPC. The State objected that the application was filed after more than nine years without explaining the delay. The applicant's counsel could not rebut the laches objection, and the High Court dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

None; application dismissed on ground of laches.

Surendra Nath Saxena Alias Sn Saxena vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:166269

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32103 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Nath Saxena Alias Sn Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Upadhyay,Kamala Devi Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Aditya Upadhyay, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicant Surendra Nath Saxena Alias Sn Saxena, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the following relief:-

¶9

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the instant application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and set-aside/quash the Chargesheet No. 370/2014 submitted in Case Crime No. 291 of 2014 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 471, 120 and 506 IPC, Police Station Phase-2, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, in Case Crime No. 291 of 2014 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468m 471, 120 and 506 IPC, Police Station Phase-2, District Gautam Buddha Nagar as well as entire proceedings emanating therefrom, by means of which, cognizance has been illegally taken upon the chargesheet, otherwise, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship.

¶10

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings in Case No. 395A of 2015 and FIR No. 291 of 2014 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506 IPC, Police Station Phasae2. District Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending in the Court Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Third, /Gautam Buddha Nagar, it is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 02,02,.2015 in case no. 395/2015 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Third Gautam Buddha Nagar, by means of which cognizance has been taken and summons have been issued against the applicants, otherwsise, the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship.

¶11

And/or pass such order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

¶12

proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶13

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that applicant has approached this Court after expiry of a period of more than 9 years and 9 months from the date of the Cognizance/Summoning order dated 02.02.2015. As such, present application is hopelessly barred by laches.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. then invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. With reference to above, the learned A.G.A. contends that though the affidavit filed in support of this application runs into as many as 48 paragraphs, however, in none of the paragraph an attempt has been made to explain the delay/laches in filing the present application. Since the delay/laches in filing present application having not been sufficiently explained, therefore, present application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

¶15

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶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 preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is already borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to record at this stage.

¶17

In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.10.2024 HSM

¶20

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

Surendra Nath Saxena Alias Sn Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Nath Saxena Alias Sn Saxena 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ali Mohammad Alias Gabbar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Darab Singh @ Tinku vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishn Gopal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yogesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Chitharoo Prasad @ Chitharoo @ Samujh vs State of Up and Another