Back
MANISH MATHUR
Manoj Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manish Mathur, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party no.1 State.
2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.
3. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging summoning order dated 16.11.2023 as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No.326 of 2019; Amjad Khan versus Manoj Yadav & Ors., under Sections 420, 452, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Babina, District Jhansi as well as order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Case No.42 of 2024; Manoj Yadav & Ors. versus State of U.P. & Ors.
4. Also under challenge is the revisional order dated 29.08.2024 whereby Criminal Revision preferred by the applicants has been rejected.
5. At the very outset, learned Additional Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the submission that in view of the fact that summoning order as well as revisional order is under challenge, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable since applicants have an alternative and equally efficacious remedy of filing of petition unde
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process, and these powers operate concurrently with Article 227 of the Constitution.
When an order under challenge is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, then inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised.
The judgment established the availability of inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the necessity for the magistrate to apply their mind before passing the summoning ord....
High Courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent injustice, even if alternate remedies are available.
A litigant must disclose all material facts when seeking relief from the court, and failure to do so can result in the denial of that relief. Successive applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of maintenance affects the right of a person drastically and substantially, hence, it cannot be treated as an interlocutory order and....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
