Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Triloki Nath And Others v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 11978 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20359 (30 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition   No.  11978   of 2006


1. Ramesh Chandra son of Soran.

2. Anil alias Pappu.

3. Niroti son of Pancham Singh.

4. Purushotam son of Dataram.

5. Pramod son of Purushotam.

6. Chitat Prasad son of Ratan Singh.

7. Bhikam Singh swon of Ram Singh.

8. Bangali son of Hukum Singh.

9. Ram Naresh son of Pooran

All Resident of Village Aaheerpura,

Police Station Iradatnagar,

District Agra.

10. Suresh alias Pappu son of Pancham Singh,

Resident of Village Niharika, P.S.

Eradatnagar, District Agra. ....... Accused-Applicants


1. State of U.P.

2. Manik Chandrason of Bhagwan Singh

R/o Village Aaheerpur,

Police Station Eradatnagar,

District Agra. ..................Opp.Parties .


Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, advocate for the petitioners  Ramesh Cjhandra and 9 others and Sri Pramendra Kumar, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

2. As will appear from the record  with regard to an incident dated 21.7.2002,  one of the petitioner here Anil Kumar, had lodged  an F.I.R. against one Chhotey and others at Police Station Eradatnagar, District Agra and  after  investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet ( in Case Crime No.148 of 2002), under Sections 147,148,149,307,504 and 506 I.P.C. against them.  The accused came to the High Court and  in Crl. Misc. Application No. 15387 of 2005  under Section 482  and the High Court   allowed them to appear through counsel  and to claim discharge at the appropriate stage vide order dated 21.10.2005.  Out of those accused, one Manik Chandra, after 10 days  of lodging  the aforenoted first information report filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against Anil Kumar  and  other  present applicants  and the learned A.C.J.M. Agra, treating it as a complaint vide order dated 12.5.2004 ordered to summon them under Sections   323,452,147,148,149,504 and 506 I.P.C.

3. I have  heard Sri  Ramesh Upadhyay, Advocate for the  petitioners  and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

4. Since in case Crime No. 317 of 2005 , State Vs. Chhotey and others filed at behest of  one of the applicant Anil Kumar, this Court has given the accused special concession to permit to appear through counsel and claim discharge, to  avoid ramification, if any, in this case too, the applicants are permitted to appear through counsel and claim discharge at the appropriate stage, provided the petitioners appear before the trial court within three weeks from today  and give a personal undertaking before the Trial court that they will appear as per the directions given to them by the court. Till  application for discharge is finally decided, no coercive process  shall be pressed into service against them.

5. With this observation, this petition is disposed of finally.

Dt:   30.11.2006

  11978/ 06 n.u.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.