Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2403 (ALL)

Sarvesh Yadav v. State of U. P.

2016-07-12

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.5.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Case No. 3271 of 2011 (State vs. Dhirendra Singh and others) arising out of case crime no. 682 of 2010 under Sections 147,148,149,332,427,504 IPC and 7 CLA Act and 3/4 Property Damage Act, Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the first information report and the charge-sheet has been filed against Shrawan Kumar s/o Dhani Ram whereas the applicant's name is Sarvesh Yadav. Earlier the applicant has approached this Court by filing Application under Section 482 No. 9869 of 2016 (Shrawan Yadav vs. State of UP and another), which was for quashing the proceedings of criminal case on the same ground. The said case was disposed of vide order dated 5.4.2016 with a direction to move an application before the Court concerned for this purpose. 4. Now the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby his application has been rejected. The application was filed on the same ground. The Court below has considered the record and has taken into account that the applicant has filed his affidavit as Sarvesh Kumar @ Shravan and has signed vakalatnama with the same name and on this ground the application was rejected. 5. I do not find any legal infirmity, illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the order impugned. 6. The prayer for setting aside the order impugned is hereby refused. 7. However, in case the applicant files his bail application before the court concerned, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law without affecting his right to take defence that he is not the person involved in the case, which shall be considered on its own merits. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the present application is disposed of.