Dismissed

Ravi Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024CRLA/2825/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants appealed to quash a summoning order under various IPC and SC/ST Act sections. The High Court held no useful purpose would be served in hearing the appeal, instead ordaining the trial court to expedite the complaint case's disposal within 12 months without unnecessary adjournments, while prohibiting coercive action against appellants pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to expedite disposal within 12 months; coercive action stayed pending case pendency.

Ravi Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:122293

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2825 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ravi Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Bal Mukund Singh,G.A.,Sanjay Ojha,Sunil Kumar Chaudhari

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sunil Kumar Chaudhari, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant appeal has been preferred with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 06.01.2024 passed learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Amroha in Complaint Case No.84 of 2023 (Gaurav Parihar Vs. Ravi Singh and others), under Section 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Amroha Nagar, District Amroha.

¶8

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 06.01.2024.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 Complaint Case No.84 of 2023 (Gaurav Parihar Vs. Ravi Singh and others), under Section 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, as expeditiously as possible, preferably

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

The instant appeal is hereby disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Vivek Kr.

¶16

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

Ravi Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Singh and 4 Others 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

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