Dismissed¶¶19

Rajeev Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2026A482/11501/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Application U/S 482 No. 11501 of 2022; Rajeev Kumar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another; decided February 18, 2026 by Padam Narain Mishra, J.; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; quashing of Special Judge SC/ST Act order dated 11.04.2022 in SST No. 469 of 2013; application 442(B) rejection; suicide note; S.S.P. Etah; inherent powers to be exercised sparingly; no manifest illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error; contentions left to trial court; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases of manifest illegality, abuse of the process of law, or where interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice. ¶¶18

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11501 of 2022

¶3

Rajeev Kumar And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Pratibha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Nitinjay Pandey, Rahul Gaur, Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi

¶9

Court No. - 82

¶10

HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the state.

¶12

Present application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST, Act in SST No. 469 of 2013.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 suffers from the non application of the judicial mind. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the peculiar factual position of the present case. He further submitted that the suicide note is very essential document in the present case. He further submitted that the trial court while dealing with the bail application of the applicants vide order dated 23.10.2009 directed that the original suicide note be send to the S.S.P. Etah. But, the Investigating Officer has admitted that he had received the photocopy of the suicide note. He lastly submitted that aforesaid mistake is gross in nature and it is essential that the explanation of the concerned S.S.P. must be called.

¶14

Learned AGA for the state and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the present application has been filed with the ulterior motive to delay the trial.

¶15

Having considered the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned AGA for the state and perusing the

¶16

A482 No. 11501 of 2022

¶17

¶18

material available on records, it transpires that the present application has been made challenging the legality of the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST, Act whereby rejected the application 442(B) on the ground that the application was moved as to delay the trial. It is well settled that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in cases where there is manifest illegality, abuse of the process of law, or where interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstance is made out. The impugned order does not suffer from any apparent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court. The contentions raised by the applicants pertain to appreciation of evidence and defence of the accused, which may appropriately be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶19

In view of above, the present application is dismissed.

¶20

February 18, 2026 Israr

¶21

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar and Another 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

Vansh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vansh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajeev Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another