Dismissed¶12

Ramdhyan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025A482/24533/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC dismisses Section 482 quashing application (Ramdhyan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another, 11.09.2025): criminal proceeding arising out of Case Crime No. 582 of 2017 under IPC ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Passport Act s. 12(2) (PS Barahalganj, Gorakhpur) pending 4+ years before CJM Gorakhpur; delay attributed to applicant's own non-appearance over 5 years; conditional direction of no coercive action for three weeks upon appearance; other legal remedies preserved.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash dismissed; conditional protection granted — if the applicant appears before the court concerned within three weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against him in pursuance of the said case till three weeks from today; liberty expressly reserved to avail all other legal remedies. ¶12

Ramdhyan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 853 of 2021 (State vs. Ramdhyan Yadav @ Pintu Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 582 of 2017 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(2) Passport Act, Police Station Barahalganj, District Gorakhpur, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, along with the impugned charge sheet dated 06.09.2019 and the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 02.01.2021, ought to be quashed.

¶6

Court's answer

The prayer made through the instant Section 482 application cannot be acceded and is liable to be dismissed: although grounds were available, the proceeding had already wasted more than 5 years and had been delayed at the behest of the applicant himself owing to his continuous non-presence before the court concerned.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The instant application is dismissed, with a direction that if the applicant appears before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against him in pursuance of the said case till three weeks from today.

¶12

Key takeaways

The applicant will be at liberty to avail all other legal remedies available at law.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application u/s 482 (Allahabad High Court, Court No. 77; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; decided 11 September 2025) by Ramdhyan Yadav (@ Pintu Yadav) seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 853 of 2021 (State vs. Ramdhyan Yadav @ Pintu Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 582 of 2017 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(2) Passport Act, Police Station Barahalganj, District Gorakhpur, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, together with the impugned charge sheet dated 06.09.2019 and the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 02.01.2021 — Proceeding pending over four years with summons issued in 2021; court observed that despite grounds being available, the proceeding had already wasted more than 5 years and had been delayed at the behest of the applicant himself due to continuous non-presence — Application DISMISSED, with a direction that if the applicant appears before the court concerned within three weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against him in pursuance of the said case till three weeks from today — Applicant expressly left at liberty to avail all other legal remedies available at law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24533 of 2024

¶2

Ramdhyan Yadav			.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ch. Dil Yadav	Nisar,	Viresh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 77

¶4

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶5

Heard Shri Chaudhary Dil Nisar alongwith Shri Viresh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA.

¶6

This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Case No.853 of 2021 (State vs. Ramdhyan Yadav @ Pintu Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.582 of 2017 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & Section 12(2) Passport Act, Police Station Barahalganj, District Gorakhpur pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur alongwith impugned charge sheet dated 06.09.2019 as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 02.01.2021.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the proceeding instituted at the behest of Opposite party no.2, the same has been registered as Case Crime No.582 of 2017 (State vs. Ramdhyan Yadav @ Pintu Yadav) appear before the learned court concerned in pursuance of bailable warrants which is pending for more than 4 years compelling the applicant to appear before learned court concerned after summoning order issued way back in the year 2021 itself.

¶8

Although grounds are available but considering the continuous non-presence before learned court concerned which has already wasted more than 5 years and the entire proceeding has already been delayed at the behest of applicant himself and as such the prayer as made through the instant application cannot be acceded hence liable to be dismissed.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is

¶10

A482 No. 24533 of 2024

¶11

¶12

dismissed with a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicant appears before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant herein in pursuance of said case till three weeks from today.

¶13

However, applicant will be at liberty to avail all other legal remedy available at law.

¶14

September 11, 2025 Rakesh

¶15

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶16

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

Ramdhyan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdhyan Yadav 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