Dismissed¶¶12

Gayyur and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2025A482/28741/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C dismissed; U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Section 2/3; charge sheet dated 06.01.2023 and cognizance order dated 26.10.2023 by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Shamli upheld; Case no.764 of 2023 (State vs. Irshad and others); Case Crime No.540 of 2020, P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli; applicants Gayyur and another; counsel Asheesh Kumar Tiwari; no illegality found in charge-sheet or cognizance/summoning order; matter left to trial; neutral citation 2025:AHC:129107.

What did the court decide?

After hearing rival submissions and bare perusal of the record, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order; the court concerned has rightly proceeded against the applicants. ¶¶11

Gayyur and Another vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129107

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28741 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gayyur And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Asheesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 06.01.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 26.10.2023 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Shamli and entire proceeding of Case no.764 of 2023 (State vs. Irshad and others) arising out of Case Crime No.540 of 2020 under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Jhinjhana District Shamli during pendency of the present application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the proceeding initiated against the applicants is illegal and against the material available on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of any alleged offences against the applicants and as such the proceedings initiated against the applicants including the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order are liable to be quashed by this court.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicants by way of submitting that the averments whatsoever has been raised by learned counsel for applicants is subject matter of trial and submitted that after considering the material available on record, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants upon which learned court concerned has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicants.

¶10

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned

¶11

counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order and as such learned court concerned has rightly proceeded against the applicants.

¶12

In view thereof, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C lacks merit and is hereby dismissed . Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Rakesh

¶13

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

Gayyur and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayyur and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajab Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Karanveer and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Yadav vs State of U.P.