Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

UMAPATI TRIPATHI @ UMAPATI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

Decided
Disposal
Dismiss other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated)

Holding

The application under Section 482 was dismissed due to non‑prosecution.

Summary

An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by Umapati Tripathi and others against the State of U.P. The applicant's counsel did not appear before the court, although the Additional Government Advocate was present. The court examined whether the application could be entertained in the absence of any prosecution or appearance by the applicants. It held that without prosecution, the application could not be entertained and therefore rejected it. Consequently, any interim order previously granted was vacated and the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned court.

Issues considered

  • Whether an application under Section 482 CrPC can be entertained when the applicant fails to appear before the court

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Section 482
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • application dismissed
  • non‑prosecution
  • interim order vacated

Judgment

                                                                             Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69494



                                         Court No. - 28

                                         Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1562 of 2023

                                         Applicant :- Umapati Tripathi @ Umapati And 3 Others
                                         Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt.
                                         Lko. And Another
                                         Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pathak,Km. Swati,Rakesh Kumar
                                         Singh
                                         Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
                                         Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.
                                         1. Case called out in the revised list. No one has put
                                         in appearance on behalf of the applicant(s) to press
                                         this application. However, learned AGA is present.

                                         2.   Application     is   accordingly        rejected        for     non-
                                         prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

                                         3. Office is directed to communicate this order to the
                                         court concerned forthwith for necessary action.

                                         .
                                                                                        (Brij Raj Singh, J.)
                                         Order Date :- 15.10.2024
                                         Rao/-




Digitally signed by :-
CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.