Allahabad High Court
CRLP/10917/2025 of VIPIN YADAV Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 27 May 2025
No. - 2025:AHC:91193-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10917 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vipin Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10917 of 2025
Petitioner :- Vipin YadavRespondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar YadavCounsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.'Honble Anil Kumar-X,J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA forState respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction torespondent no. 2 to decide the application dated27.1.2025(Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) filed by father ofthe petitioner to close the History Sheet No. 64A .
3. This much is contended that the petitioner does not come underthe criteria prescribed under Regulation 228 of the U.P. PoliceRegulations. It is also submitted that in similar circumstances thisCourt has accorded indulgence vide order dated 7.2.2024 inCriminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3355 of 2021 (Faisal @ VaishSiddiqui v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and the petitioner being on similarfooting is also entitled for similar indulgence. Reliance has alsobeen placed on the judgment dated 4.3.2024 passed by theDivision Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ PetitionNo.9074 of 2022 (Aftab Alam v. State of U.P. & Ors.).
4. Mr. G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents veryfairly conceded the fact that in case petitioner moves a freshapplication at the earliest before the Competent Authority,definitely the same would be considered expeditiously.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purposewould be served in keeping the writ petition pendingconsideration. The writ petition stands disposed of asking thepetitioner to move a fresh representation ventilating his grievancebefore the respondent No. 2- Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur. Incase, any such representation is moved by the petitioner within three weeks, we hope and trust that the said representation wouldbe considered on merit by the Competent Authority, who mustaccord audience to the parties having stake in the matter and onlythereafter decide the said representation expeditiously, preferablywithin three months. Suffice to indicate that the Court has notadverted on the merits of the case.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
Order Date :- 28.5.2025A.K.Srivastava