Jai Prakash Katiyar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2025NA528/9517/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS; Essential Commodities Act sections 3/7; charge-sheet no.503 of 2024 dated 15.08.2024; cognizance/summoning order dated 18.01.2025; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Bareilly; Criminal Case No.44 of 2025; Case Crime No.0537 of 2023; P.S. Baradari; expeditious trial directions; disposed without deciding merits; Allahabad High Court 2025; Jai Prakash Katiyar v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

The quashing prayer was not granted; the application stands disposed of with directions to the trial court to proceed with Criminal Case No.44 of 2025 and decide it expeditiously with proper opportunity of hearing, both parties to cooperate, no unnecessary adjournments, and the applicant to ensure presence through counsel. ¶¶15

Jai Prakash Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings initiated against the applicant, including the impugned charge-sheet no.503 of 2024 dated 15.08.2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 18.01.2025 in Criminal Case No.44 of 2025 under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, are illegal and liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶¶8

Court's answer

The Court observed that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending before it, and accordingly did not adjudicate the quashing prayer on merits.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

The learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly is directed to proceed with Criminal Case No.44 of 2025 (State vs. Jai Prakash Katiyar) under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, subject to there being no legal impediment.

¶¶12

Key takeaways

The trial court is directed to decide Criminal Case No.44 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible by giving proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned.ratio¶¶12
Both parties are directed to extend their full cooperation to the concerned court, and the concerned court is requested not to extend unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.ratio¶¶13
The applicant is directed to ensure his presence through counsel before the learned concerned court; if personal appearance is directed for a specific date, the same is to be intimated to the applicant through counsel as per the mandated procedure.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS by Jai Prakash Katiyar seeking quashing of charge-sheet no.503 of 2024 dated 15.08.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.44 of 2025 (State vs. Jai Prakash Katiyar) under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, arising out of Case Crime No.0537 of 2023, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly. Observing that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending, the Court did not decide the quashing prayer on merits and instead directed the trial court to proceed with the case and decide it as expeditiously as possible with proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned; both parties were directed to extend full cooperation, the court was requested not to grant unnecessary adjournments, and the applicant was directed to ensure his presence through counsel, with any directed personal appearance to be intimated through counsel.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45424

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9517 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Jai Prakash Katiyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Singh Yadav,Vaibhav Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred for quashing the charge-sheet no.503 of 2024 dated 15.08.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 18.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.44 of 2025 (State vs. Jai Prakash Katiyar), under sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act arising out of Case Crime No.0537 of 2023, P.S. Baradari, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly.

¶8

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

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and submitted that after considering the material available on record, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant upon which learned court concerned has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicant.

¶10

Be that as it may, no useful purpose shall be served by way of keeping the matter pending before this Court.

¶11

Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, if there is no legal impediment, learned court of Additional

¶12

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly is hereby directed to proceed with Criminal Case No.44 of 2025 (State vs. Jai Prakash Katiyar), under sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act arising out of Case Crime No.0537 of 2023, P.S. Baradari, DistrictBareilly and decide the same as expeditiously as possible by way of giving proper opportunity of hearing to all the concerns.

¶13

Both the parties are hereby directed to extend their full cooperation to learned concerned court for achieving directions as made above and at the same time, it is also requested to learned concerned court for not extending unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶14

However, it is made clear that the applicant is hereby directed to ensure his presence through counsel before learned concerned court. Personal appearance of the applicant, if directed for the specific date, the same may be intimated through counsel to the applicant by learned court concerned, which is mandated as per the procedure.

¶15

The instant application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Saif

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jai Prakash Katiyar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Katiyar 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