Disposed

Ram Kripal Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2024A482/4513/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court stayed further proceedings in criminal case arising out of allegations under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC, noting that the impugned orders issuing non-bailable warrants were passed in a routine manner without application of mind and that the State agreed with the applicant's contentions.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in pursuance of impugned orders stayed; application listed for hearing on 04.09.2024.

Ram Kripal Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4513 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Kripal Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Vaish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Manish Vaish, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the Stateopposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 29.03.2024 and 15.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Ist/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Case No.547/2024 arising out of Case Crime No.324/1997; State vs. Ram Kripal Pandey under Sections 323, 324 and 325 I.P.C. whereby learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Ist/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad has passed the Non Bailable Warrant. It is further prayed on behalf of the applicant that the entire proceedings of the Case Crime No.324/1997 may be quashed, in the interest of justice.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case due to enmity. He further submits that the impugned proceedings were initiated against the applicant in the year 1997 and till date not even a single witness has been examined by the trial court. The case was listed before the trial court on 29.03.2024 and 15.04.2024 and on 29.03.2024 a Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the applicant by the Presiding Officer. He further submits that on perusal of the order dated 29.03.2024, it appears that the order was casually transcribed by the Peshkar and was signed by the Presiding Officer. The order dated 29.03.2024 is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶8

" नययययलयअपरससववलजज (सस०वड०) पथममहहदयफफजयबयद वयदसस0-547/24 अ०नय०-324/97 रयजयरयमककपयलपयणडडय धयरय-323, 324, 325 आई०पस०सस०थयनयककमयरगसज, फफजयबयद वदनयसक 29.03.24

¶9

गयय। वदनयसक 15.04.2024 कह प क यरय अवभय क गण अनकपससथत। अवभय क गणजररयडएन०बस०डबललतलबहह। पस०ओ०महहदयतफमयससकवनरसकणकययरमम वयसतहफ। एस०सस०जड० (सस०वड०)"

¶10

Thus, he submits that on careful perusal of the aforesaid order dated 29.03.2024 it transpires that the order was authored by Presiding Officer but in the last line, it appears that the same was in the language of Peshkar and was signed by Presiding Officer, which shows total casual approach on part of the Presiding Officer, even though, the Presiding Officer did not go through the record placed before him and has passed the order without application of judicial mind.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the Presiding Officer again pass the order dated 15.04.2024 by which, a Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the applicant, whereas on that date the applicant was present before the concerned court but the trial court ignored his presence and again issued a Non Bailable Warrant against the applicant vide order dated 15.04.2024. He further submits that the counsel of the applicant in the trial court was present in an other court.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that against the order dated 15.04.2024, the applicant moved an application dated 15.04.2024 for recall of the order dated 15.04.2024 issuing a Non Bailable Warrant against the applicant but the said application is still pending. The application dated 15.04.2024 moved by the applicant is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the Presiding Officer has passed the impugned orders in a routine manner without application of mind and also in a printed proforma. He further submits that on 15.04.2024 when the second Non Bailable Warrant was issued, the applicant was present in the court concerned but his presence was ignored and his recall application was kept pending. He further submits that both the orders passed by the Presiding Officer were passed in a cursory manner without application of judicial mind, thus, prays for some interim relief.

¶14

Learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite party Nos.1 to 3 submits that from the perusal of the order dated 29.03.2024 it appears that the order was passed without application of mind and on plain reading of the said order, it is clear that the order was transcribed by the Peshkar and the Presiding Officer has only signed it without going through the contents of the same. He further submits that the order dated 29.03.2024 is non speaking

¶15

and thereafter, on 15.04.2024, the applicant was present in the court premises but his presence was ignored and a second Non Bailable Warrant was issued against him vide order dated 15.04.2024. He further submits that even though, the applicant moved an application for recall of order dated 15.04.2024 but the same is still pending, thus, he does not dispute the contentions made by learned Counsel for the applicant.

¶16

In view of the above, matter requires consideration on fact and law both.

¶17

Learned A.G.A-I has appeared on behalf of the State-opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

¶18

Let notice be issued to opposite party No.4 by R.P.A.D. returnable at an early date.

¶19

Steps to be taken within ten days' from today.

¶20

Learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite party Nos.1 to 3 as well as opposite party No.4 may file their counter affidavits within four weeks' from today. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to learned Counsel for the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶21

Accordingly, list/put up this case on 04.09.2024 before appropriate Bench.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in pursuance of the orders dated 29.03.2024 and 15.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Ist/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Case No.547/2024 arising out of Case Crime No.324/1997; State vs. Ram Kripal Pandey under Sections 323, 324 and 325 I.P.C. whereby learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Ist/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad has passed the Non Bailable Warrant and entire proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed so far it relates to the present applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.5.2024 Piyush/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kripal Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kripal Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

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

Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs Mrs. Aradhna Shukla, Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush ANUBHAG-1, Civil Secrtt., Lko.

Mohd. Shahid Vs Sri Rajesh Gautam, Incharge Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich

Shyam Lal and Another Vs Sri Brajesh Chandra Tiwari Inspector SHO P.S-Pgi Lko and Another

Mithlesh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Prem Chandra Verma and Another Vs Brigadier Akhil Dixit and Others

Masihul Haq Vs Smt. Neha Sharma District Magistrate Gonda and Another