GANGARAM Vs. STATE OF U. P.
LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-170
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
December 04,2021
GANGARAM
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U. P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
R. R. CHARI V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]AJIT KUMAR PALIT V. STATE OF W.B. [REFERRED TO]
ANKIT VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS U.P. CRIMINAL REPORT [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
R R CHARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANDAS BHAGWANDAS MADHAVDAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DAS SINDHI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR SARAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
M L SETHI VS. R P KAPUR [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH RAM KISHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DEVARAPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY VS. V NARAYANA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
TULA RAM VS. KISHORE SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARERAM SATPATHY VS. TIKARAM AGARWALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
JANATA DAL VS. H.S.CHOWDHARY [REFERRED TO]
PEPSI FOODS LIMITED VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M DEVENDRAPPA [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT DAMODAR KALE VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD VS. SHARAFUL HAQUE [REFERRED TO]
HARISHCHANDRA PRASAD MANI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
JAPANI SAHOO VS. CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
FAKHRUDDIN AHMAD VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
BHUSHAN KUMAR VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MEHMOOD UL REHMAN AND ORS. VS. KHAZIR MOHAMMAD TUNDA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Whether summons issued on cyclostyled and printed proforma, qualifies the litmus test of being the real intent of the word "cognizance" is a question which falls for determination before this Court in the present proceeding.
(2.)Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, who appears for opposite party nos. 1 and 2.
(3.)In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today, there is no need to issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 as the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned A.G.A. have consented for disposal of the present application at the admission stage, particularly in view of the peculiar facts of the case, wherein only the order summoning applicants dtd. 6/11/2020 is subject matter of scrutiny on a technical issue as demonstrated in the latter part of the judgment.
(2.)Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, who appears for opposite party nos. 1 and 2.
(3.)In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today, there is no need to issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 as the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned A.G.A. have consented for disposal of the present application at the admission stage, particularly in view of the peculiar facts of the case, wherein only the order summoning applicants dtd. 6/11/2020 is subject matter of scrutiny on a technical issue as demonstrated in the latter part of the judgment.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.