Dismissed

Gautam Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024A482/8231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejected a Single Judge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed after an unauthorized delay exceeding 17 years. The court held the applicant, a former police Sub-Inspector, could have approached the court earlier and deemed the condonation of delay insufficient, dismissing the plea to quash the summoning order.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected; trial directed to proceed.

Gautam Kumar vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116072

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8231 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gautam Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushlendra Singh,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Applicant before this Court has challenged an impugned summoning order dated 19.01.2007 i.e. after more than 17 years and explanation for condoning delay as mentioned in paragraph 29 and 30 as well as contents of paragraph 48 and 51 of application are quoted below :-

¶7

"29. That the applicant has no knowledge of the summoning order passed by the Court of Special Judge (D.A.A.) Farrukhabad, as he was posted in District Kanpur Nagar and subsequently in various other locations.

¶8

That the summoning order was never served upon the applicant. On 02.08.2023, the Learned Special Judge (E. C. Act.) Farrukhabad issued a warrant, and the date was fixed for 23.09.2023. It was only on 06.08.2023 that the applicant became aware of the matter and obtained all relevant documents from the Court of the Special Judge (D.A.A.) Farrukhabad.

¶9

That on the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is a breach of constitutional provisions and an abuse of the process of law.

¶10

That the applicant has no knowledge and the Court below has issued order of NBW, 82, and 83 jointly but no orders has been served upon the applicant at any time of service in police department."

¶11

Before entering into merit of case, applicant has to satisfy the Court that there were sufficient reasons for not approaching this Court earlier.

¶12

The applicant was a Sub-Inspector, therefore, it is beyond imagination that he has no knowledge when summon, bailable warrants and non bailable warrants, proceedings u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated though it was tried to serve upon applicant where at relevant time, he was working. The applicant has avoided the due process and misused the position as police inspector. The reasons assigned are not only vague but legally unsustainable also.

¶13

In aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any reason to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Accordingly, application lacks merit, hence, rejected .

¶15

Trial Court is directed to proceed further in Complaint Case (SST) No. 48/2006 pending before Additional District Judge, Court-5, Farrukhabad u/s 392 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Fatehgarh, District- Farukkhabad.

¶16

Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 N. Sinha

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gautam Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Kumar 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

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

Mangal Basoai and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Shivani Tyagi and 4 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ashish Bhardwaj vs State of U.P. 2 Others

Majid Ahmad and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Abrar Pathan vs State of Up and Another