Disposed

Ranjit @ Nahna and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024CRLA/2822/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal appeal seeking quashing of a summoning order. The court directed the trial court to expedite and finalize the trial proceedings within 12 months. A stay was granted on coercive action until the pendency of the complaint case.

What did the court decide?

The special complaint case proceedings to be expedited and finalized within 12 months. Coercive action stayed till the pendency of the case.

Ranjit @ Nahna and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:122276

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2822 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ranjit @ Nahna And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma,Ram Chandra Uttam

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Dubey

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for appellants and Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA.

¶8

The instant appeal has been filed for seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 20.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura in Special Complaint Case No.59 of 2022, (Smt. Somwati Vs. Ranjit @ Nanha and another), under Section 376-D, 511, 377, 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)da, dha, 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baldeo, District Mathura as well entire proceedings of the said case.

¶9

Learned counsel for appellants pressed all the grounds whatsoever have been taken through the instant criminal appeal through which, it has been apprised that there is hardly any attraction of sections in which the appellants have been summoned and all these grounds have not been taken into consideration while passing the order dated 20.02.2024.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant appeal on the ground that summoning order has been passed after considering the material available on record.

¶11

Be that as it may, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending by way of calling counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit by the parties and as such, learned court concerned is hereby directed to expedite and finalize the proceedings of Special Complaint Case No.59 of 2022, (Smt. Somwati Vs. Ranjit @ Nanha and another), under Section 376-D, 511, 377, 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)da, dha, 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baldeo, District Mathura, as expeditiously as

¶12

possible, preferably within a period of 12 months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties but after giving full opportunity of hearing to both sides.

¶13

Learned counsel for appellants assures on behalf of the appellants that they will fully cooperate with the learned trial court concerned for expeditious disposal of the said case.

¶14

However, it is made clear that till the pendency of the above mentioned complaint case no coercive action shall be initiated against the appellants herein.

¶15

The instant appeal is hereby disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Vivek Kr.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjit @ Nahna and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit @ Nahna 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

Suresh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of Up Others

Bhaoo Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sumit Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Julfikar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Devnath Pal and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishnadutt Alias Mukhya vs State of U.P. and Another