Alok Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1786 of 2025

Alok Kumar Pandey

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Janardan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pramod Kumar Verma

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

(Order on I.A. No. Nil of 2026 in re: application for Amendment)

¶10

Application for amendment filed today is taken on record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he may be permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause in the memo of the application.

¶12

Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of application, under consideration, and the fact that the same has not been opposed, this Court is of the view that the application is liable to allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause in the memo of the application, during the course of the day.

¶15

(Order on Application Under Seection 482 CrPC)

¶16

The present application has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 1237 of 2023, as well as the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, whereby a non-bailable warrant has been issued and proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated against

¶17

A482 No. 1786 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

the applicant.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not want to press the instant application so far as impugned summoning order dated 17.05.2023 is concerned. He further submits that on 06.01.2025, a nonbailable warrant has been issued and proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated against the applicant, which is legally not sustainable.

¶21

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the court towards the judgments of this High Court in the case of Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh @ Chandan Singh v. State of U.P. & ors. (Case U/S 482/378/407 No. 2261 of 2021), dated 18.08.2021 ; and in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Singh (Case U/S 482/378/407 No. 5195 of 2021), dated 10.12.2021 , and has submitted that the Magistrate should not issue proclamation order under Section 82, CrPC in a routine manner on the simple application of investigating officer and the application should be supported by an affidavit of the investigating officer stating the reason why Non-Bailable Warrant and proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is required, therefore, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the applicants, the impugned proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is bad in law.

¶22

Learned AGA for the State and Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the application but could not dispute the law settled by this court in Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh @ Chandan Singh (Supra) and Vinod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Singh (Supra).

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶24

The record reveals that the Non-Bailable Warrant and the proceedings under Section 82 CrPC have been initiated on the same date i.e. 06.01.2025,, which is in violation of Section 82 CrPC, wherein the timelimit is provided, i.e.,30 days, and also the case of the applicant is covered by the cases of Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh @ Chandan Singh (Supra) and Vinod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Singh (Supra).

¶25

A482 No. 1786 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the application is partly allowed. The order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar is hereby quashed/set-aside.

¶28

The applicant will appear before the court below within two weeks from today and the court below will pass appropriate order on the application of the applicants.

¶29

The Magistrate is directed to adhere to the provisions of Section 143(3) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly expedite the proceedings of the aforesaid case in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties.

¶30

The applicant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited in terms of order dated 28.02.2025, the same shall be released in his favour forthwith.

¶31

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶32

April 17, 2026 Mohit Singh/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dheeraj Sharma @ Dheeraj Kumar Sharma @ Sanju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mustaq Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Parvez and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Kushagra Srivastava and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vikas Prashant Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Vikas Prashant Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another