Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Rajendra @ Pappu vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|23 December, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12619 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rajendra @ Pappu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Perdeep Kumar Vishnoi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 20.10.2021, registered as F.I.R. No.0575/2021, under Sections 363/366 IPC, P.S. Hasanpur, District Amroha and further not to arrest the petitioner in the above case.
At the very outset, Sri Pradeep Kumar Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not aware of the filing of the first writ petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11336 of 2021, arising out of the same Case Crime No.575/2021 which was already disposed of vide order dated 27.11.2021, directing the petitioner to get her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and further respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioner for a period of five weeks therefrom. Sri Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner further states that he came to know only about this fact on perusal of the list of fresh cases.
Order dated 27.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11336 of 2021 is quoted hereunder:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the first information report dated 20.10.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 575 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S.- Hasanpur, District- Amroha (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).
Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of submission contends that first and second petitioners are major and have married with each other out of their own free will and as such no offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. is made out.
Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the petitioner No. 1 to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., within two weeks from today. In the event the petitioner No. 1 appears before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within the stipulated period, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall record her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and shall also ensure age determination of petitioner No. 1 through medical examination within two weeks and thereafter shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.
For a period of five weeks, respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR subject to cooperation in the on- going investigation. "
It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner- Rajendra @ Pappu has deliberately given fresh Vakalatnama either through local counsel or himself for the purpose of filing the present writ petition without disclosing that his earlier petition for the same cause of action has been disposed of.
Learned counsel for the petitioner may not be aware of this fact, however, he should have taken precaution to ascertain as to whether any petition has already been filed for the same case crime number or not.
We are, therefore, prima facie, of the opinion that the petitioner is responsible for this abuse of process of law.
In present days cost of running of Court is extremely high. No doubt that in a welfare State doors of the Courts are open for all and object is to provide justice to the poorest. However, those who are abusing the process of law and are wasting time of the Court by filing such successive petitions, for the same cause of action, with false statement that it is the first petition, should not be allowed to misuse the forum/Court.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) which the petitioner shall deposit with the Registrar General of this Court, within a period of one month from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad. If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand), the Registrar General of this Court shall inform the District Magistrate/Collector, Amroha for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue, who shall after recovering the said amount from the petitioner, transmit it to the Registrar General of this Court for depositing in the account of High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad within a further period of three months.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 C.Prakash
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rajendra @ Pappu vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
23 December, 2021
Judges
  • Vivek Kumar Birla
Advocates
  • Perdeep Kumar Vishnoi