Dismissed

Chandra Shekhar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024A482/38140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant was dismissed. The applicants were found to have evaded trial proceedings since 1999 by filing repeated exemption applications, rendering the High Court unwilling to grant indulgence.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed due to the applicants' evasion of trial proceedings.

Chandra Shekhar and Another vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177073

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38140 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Akash Patel, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

2. Perused the record.

¶8

Applicants-Chandra Shekhar And Another, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chakiya Chandauli, whereby, non-bailable warrant has been issued against applicants.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that Court below vide order dated 23.08.2024 issued bailable warrant against applicants. However, in the affidavit filed in support of present application there is no explanation as to on what date the said bailable warrant were executed against applicants. Furthermore, it is apparent from the order sheet that applicants have been evading the proceedings of criminal case pending against them before Court below by filing exemption applications repeatedly. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that on account of noncooperative conduct of the applicants who are accused, the trial of the applicants and other co-accused could not be concluded even though the trial is of the year 1999. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicants.

¶10

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

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this

¶12

application are borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants. In view of above no occasion arises before Court this Court to entertain this application.

¶13

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

¶14

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Imtiyaz

¶16

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Shekhar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar 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

Govind Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Giri vs State of Up and 2 Others

Mohammad Asgar @ Sayyed Mohammad Asghar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Haroon vs State of Up

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

Pappu Ram and 6 Others vs State of Up and Another