Disposed

Indrapal and 2 Other v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2025A227/985/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to review summoning and revision orders in a criminal case. Finding no disclosure of offense failure, the Court refused the prayer to set aside the orders but permitted the petitioners to move a discharge application before the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer refused; liberty granted to move discharge application within 30 days; stay of coercive measures for 30 days or till disposal.

Indrapal and 2 Other vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46800

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 985 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Indrapal And 2 Other Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepankar Chaudhary,Shivam Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 26.5.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Court No. 16, Shahjahanpur in Misc. Case No. 112 of 2023 (Dragpal vs. Ashok and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 451 of 2021 under Sections 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Puwaya, District Shahjahanpur (Annexure No. 4 to this petition) and impugned order dated 23.8.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 10, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2023 (Indraapl vs. State of U.P. & another) (Annexure No. 5 to this petition).

¶9

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 petitioners. 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.

¶10

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is refused.

¶11

However, in view of the submissions, it is provided that in case the petitioners move an application for discharge through counsel within 30 days, the same shall be disposed

¶12

of by the Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.

¶13

For a period of 30 days or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Puspendra

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indrapal and 2 Other v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrapal and 2 Other 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinta Ram and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manju Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 Others

Smt. Annu Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Taiyaba Khatoon Alias Nisha and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankit Kumar Sonkar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others