Ram Kishan And Others vs State on 22 October, 2019
(I) Shashi Kant Vs. State of U.P., (2008)1 ALJ (Noc) 167 Allahabad.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.61 seconds)Nitya Nand Dubey, Chairman ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, Station House ... on 28 April, 2006
10. In my opinion, it would be premature and inappropriate for this Court to adjudicate on these questions of fact, which properly fall within the domain of the Investigating agency which has been directed to investigate this case by the order of the Magistrate dated 11.2.1999 or the trial court at the appropriate stage. The Court has only to see, if a prima facie case is disclosed and it is not concerned with the defence of the accused opposite parlies or the eventual probability of conviction on the allegations raised. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on a number of decisions of this Court and the Apex Court vis-a-vis Ravi Kant v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2005 (1) JIC 222 (All), Jayandra Saraswati v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2005 (1) JIC 193 (SC), State of Harayana v. Bhajan Lal , Madan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 2829 and A.S. Nayal v. Khem Chand reported in 1983 ACC 264 for the propositions that in an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. this Court can go into the question as to whether the a compLaint has been filed in a mala fide or bona fide manner, and the probabilities of conviction. In my view, the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant need to be confined to their own facts. In some extreme cases where it appears to the superior Court that the case has patently been initiated with an ulterior motive for launching a false and malicious prosecution against an accused or where it is apparent to the Court, without examining the defence version set up by the accused, that there is absolutely no likelihood of conviction, then in some very rare cases, the High Court may have been entitled to short-circuit the ordinary process of investigation or trial, and quash the criminal proceedings at the initial Stage itself. But that has to be the exception, and the power was to be exercised in the rarest of rare cases, with utmost circumspection. The normal rule is that in the ordinary course the investigating agency and thereafter the trial court at the appropriate stage are only empowered to consider the reliability and credibility of the material and the question whether the prosecution was launched in a mala fide or bona fide manner.
Shashi Kant Rai vs State Of U.P. on 10 July, 2019
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated 20.10.1992 passed by Sri Rajdeo, Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1990 (Shashi Kant Rai vs. State) whereby appeal preferred by revisionist was dismissed and judgment and order dated 27.3.1990 passed by Sri Amar Nath Upadhyay, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No.415 of 1990 convicting revisionist under sections 323/34, 325/34, 504 and 506 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323/34, one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34 and one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 IPC and one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC have been confirmed.
Shashi Kant Yadav vs P. Guruprasad, Executive Commissioner on 24 September, 2019
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.04.2019 passed in Writ-A No.6650 of 2019 (Shashi Kant Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
Neeraj Kumar And 53 Others vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 11 November, 2020
It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question of payment of H.R.A. as per the category of the district the employee is posted in, has come to be considered by this Court in the case of Shashi Kant Singh & others v. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.- 24646 of 2011, wherein the following order has come to be passed in the said case:-
Irshad Ali Khan And 21 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 26 November, 2020
Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of the Court to the joint representation given by the petitioners to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar through Sri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate. He also placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in Writ-A No.32698 of 2016 (H.C.P. 223 C.P. Malkhan Singh and 10 Others Vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home and 2 Others) wherein this Court had placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court passed in Writ-A No.24646 of 2011 (Shashi Kant Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and directed the authorities to consider the claim of petitioners in respect of their house rent allowance in the light of judgement of Shashi Kant Singh (supra).
1