SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 1029

RAMESH SINHA, DINESH KUMAR SINGH I
ROHITASHAV KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari for the Applicant; A.G.A. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Verma, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C application has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 8.2.2018 passed in Misc. case No. 10 of 2017 (Rohitashav Kumar v. Shishu Pal Singh and others) under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. read with Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, decided by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Court No. 2/ Additional Sessions Judge Bareilly (Annexure 2) and the further prayer is made to stay the operation and effect of the said order dated 8.2.2018 (Annexure 2) and that a direction be issued to the said Court to pass fresh orders on the application of the applicant.

3. It would be proper to refer here to the complaint made as well as the impugned order passed thereon so as to know what were the facts of the case and what order was passed by the Court below. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the petitioner has submitted an application before the Court below under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. stating that he was appointed on the post of clerk in District Panchayat Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top