Disposed¶12

Bhupendra v. State of U..P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2025A227/2410/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, 2025:AHC:41562, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2410 of 2025, decided 21.3.2025 by Nand Prabha Shukla, J. Keywords: Article 227 jurisdiction; summoning order; Section 406 IPC; criminal revision Meerut; disputed questions of fact; failure of justice / abuse of process test; discharge application direction; interim protection from coercive action; petition disposed of, prayer refused.

What did the court decide?

Prayer of the petitioner to set aside the impugned orders refused; however, the petitioner is permitted to move a discharge application within six weeks, to be disposed of by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, and no coercive action shall be taken against him for six weeks or till disposal of such application, whichever is earlier. ¶12

Bhupendra vs State of U..P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the impugned revisional order dated 11.12.2024 and the summoning order dated 17.01.2024 should be allowed.

¶7

Court's answer

From the perusal of the material on record and the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court; the power may be exercised only where the Court finds failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.

¶8

Key takeaways

In view of the submissions, if the petitioner moves a discharge application within six weeks, the trial court shall dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.ratio¶10
For a period of six weeks, or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 petition against summoning order dated 17.01.2024 (CJM, Meerut, Criminal Case No. 1717 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 2023, Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar) and revisional order dated 11.12.2024 (ADJ, Court No. 17, Meerut, Criminal Revision No. 241 of 2024): Held, on the material on record it cannot at this stage be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner; the objections rest on disputed questions of fact not amenable to adjudication in Article 227 proceedings save where there is failure of justice or misuse of process; prayer refused. Liberty granted to move a discharge application within six weeks, to be dealt with by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order; no coercive action for six weeks or till disposal of such application, whichever earlier. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41562

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2410 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Bhupendra Respondent :- State Of U..P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi,Prashank Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 241 of 2024 Bhupendra Versus Nishkam Tyagi and another and summoning order dated 17.01.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 1717 of 2023 State of U.P. Vs. Virendra Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 2023, under Section 406 IPC, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Meerut.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court, only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice.

¶9

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the submissions, it is provided that in case the petitioner moves discharge application within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

¶11

For a period of six weeks or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.3.2025/Shivani

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhupendra v. State of U..P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra v. State of U..P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Shilpee Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Munni Devi vs Ravikant Yadav and 5 Others

Anil Paswan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sushma Devi Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Narayan vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Pal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others