Dismissed¶14

Manoj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025A482/36331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application dismissed as infructuous where charges framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and trial commenced (P.W.1 examined) during pendency; offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 509(B), 419 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; charge sheet dated 25.08.2023 and cognizance order dated 12.10.2023; Special Case No. 1155/2023, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hapur; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Rajeev Misra, J.; order dated 9.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since charges were framed against the applicant under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and trial had commenced during the pendency of the Section 482 application (P.W.1 having deposed), the prayer for quashing the charge sheet, cognizance order and proceedings has been rendered infructuous. ¶13

Manoj vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36331 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Satya Priya Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Satya Priya Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicant Manoj who is charge sheeted accused has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶9

" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and further be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet filed against the applicant us 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 509(B), 419 IPC & Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Mahila Thana District Hapur dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit), the impugned cognizance order dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure No. 7 to this Affidavit), as well as the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 1155/2023 State vs. Manoj u/s 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 509(B), 419 IPC & Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention, of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Mahila Thana District Hapur pend goere ner Coul aid. Trial Court Special Judge (SC/ST) Act/Additional District Judge 3rd Hapur, may kindly be quashed by this Hon'ble High Court against the applicant.

¶10

AND

¶11

It is further prayed that the effect and operation of the impugned charge sheet filed against the applicant u/s 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 509(B), 419 IPC & Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Mahila Thana District Hapur dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit), the impugned cognizance order dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure No. 7 to this Affidavit), as well as the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 1155/2023 State vs. Manoj u/s 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 509(B), 419 IPC & Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Ld. Trial Court Special Judge (SC/ST) Act/Additional District Judge 3rd Hapur, may kindly be stayed against the applicant, during the pendency of the present application, and/or to pass any other and further order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."

¶12

After some argument, the learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that during pendency of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, charges were framed against applicant by Court below in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, trial of applicant commenced. Up to this stage, one prosecution witness i.e. P.W.1 has deposed before Court below.

¶13

In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present application has been rendered infructuous. As such, the same is liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

¶14

In view of above this application is accordingly dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Arshad

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Riyaz Hussain Alias Raju vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Anuradha Pandey Alias Chandana vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Anash vs State of Upand Another

Arif and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another