Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 178991 (ALL)

RAJDEV VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

A482/8918/2025 · 2025-11-03

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8918 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s) and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 112255/2023, State Vs. Raj Dev Verma, arising out case crime no. 147/2023, under section-504 IPC & Section-30 Arms Act, Police Station- Chinhat, District-Lucknow is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial, Court No.29, Lucknow and also quash the impugned charge sheet dated 23.05.2023, submitted by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner as well as the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 12.10.2023, issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.27, Lucknow, contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this petition." 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant(s) submitted that at this stage, he is confining his prayer to seek the benefit of the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 for which liberty may be given to the applicant(s) and liberty may also be given to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again at appropriate stage for seeking appropriate relief. 4. Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant(s). 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhoopal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajdev Verma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) and Musheer Alam (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today, they would not take any coercive action against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case. It is made clear that in this regard, no application shall be entertained. November 3, 2025 Arun/- A482 No. 8918 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench