Reshma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39098 of 2024

Applicant :- Reshma Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Connected with

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21101 of 2024

¶6

Applicant :- Satya Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Tiwari,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

With

¶8

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39906 of 2024

¶9

Applicant :- Premvati Devi @ Guddi Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶10

With

¶11

Court No. - 71

¶12

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32279 of 2024

¶13

Applicant :- Adal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶14

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶15

Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicants- Reshma devi, Satya Prakash and Premvati Devi @ Guddi Devi and the learned A.G.A. for state. No one appears on behalf of applicant- Adal Singh, to press this application.

¶16

Perused the record.

¶17

Applicants have approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶18

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to quash the impugned proceeding of the Session Trial no. 432-A of 2006 arising out of case crime no. (Case Crime No. 20 of 2005) (State of U.P Vs. Satay Prakesh), under section 319, 147,302, 120 B IPC. pending in the court of Additional session Judge/F.T.C-V Firozabad. so far its relates to the applicant. So the Justice be done.

¶19

It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of impugned proceeding of the Session Trial no. 432-A of 2006 arising out of case crime no. (Case Crime No. 20 of 2005) (State of U.P Vs. Satay Prakesh), under section 319 Cr.P.C.147, 302, 120-B I.P.C. pending in the court of Additional session Judge/F.T.C-V Firozabad, for during the pendency and till the disposal of the present petition of the applicant before this Hon'ble And/or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶20

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection by contending that prayer prayed for by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is wholly misconceived. The trial is of the year 2006, whereas applicant has approached this Court in the year 2024. Attention of the Court was invited to page 54 of the paper book and on basis thereof he submits that applicant was initially summoned by Court below in exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by above, applicant approached this Court. The said order was set aside by this Court vide order dated 28.9.2010. Again the revisionist was summoned by Court below vide order dated 13.9.2011 which was also set aside by this court vide order dated 11.11.2011. There is nothing on record to show as to what happened subsequent to order dated 11.11.2011. Prima facie in the absence of any challenge to above order, the proceedings cannot be challenged by accused who has been summoned by Court below in exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. In view of above, the learned A.G.A. therefore submits that present application is misconceived. As such, same is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for

¶23

applicants, with reference to the record at this stage. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present applications.

¶24

In view of above, these applications fail and are liable to be dismissed.

¶25

They are accordingly dismissed.

¶26

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Arshad

¶27

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