Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rajendra Vs. State of U.P.

Rajendra vs State of U.P.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Apr 17, 1992
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/468554

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Misc. Case No. 345 of 1992
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 106, 107, 116, 116(3) and 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajendra

Advocate R.N. Rastogi, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Advocate Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 106, 107, 116, 116(3) and 482
Reported In
1993CriLJ3058

Excerpt

- orderj.k. mathur, j.1. by this application under section 482, cr. p.c. the applicant seeks quashing of proceedings initiated against him under section 107/116, cr.p.c.2. it is not disputed that proceedings under section 107/106, cr. p.c. are already pending against the present applicant on the basis of a report contained in annexure 1. during the pendency of these proceedings another set of proceedings are sought to be initiated against the applicant under the same provisions of law.3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties.4. the purpose of proceedings under section 107, cr. p.c. is to require a person to keep peace during the period as may be fixed by the magistrate extending to one year. in case of imminent breach of peace apprehended, the prosecution can always move under section 116(3), cr.p.c. during the enquiry. another proceedings under section 107, cr. p.c. even if it succeeds will again result in same order as may be passed in the earlier proceeding. the order in the earlier proceedings will be effective against any breach of peace even if it is not connected with the incident in respect of which the proceedings are initiated.5. in these circumstances, successive proceedings during the pendency of earlier ones, under section 107/116, cr. p.c. would only amount to harassment without any additional restriction imposable on the applicant. the process of law cannot be used merely to harass a person.6. the application is, therefore, allowed. only the proceedings under section 107/116, cr. p.c. as were initiated earlier against the petitioner are, therefore, to be continued. the subsequent set of proceedings are hereby quashed. however, it will be open to the magistrate to proceed against the applicant after inclusion of the present proceedings, if it be necessary.

Full Judgment

ORDER

J.K. Mathur, J.

1. By this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the applicant seeks quashing of proceedings initiated against him under Section 107/116, Cr.P.C.

2. It is not disputed that proceedings under Section 107/106, Cr. P.C. are already pending against the present applicant on the basis of a report contained in annexure 1. During the pendency of these proceedings another set of proceedings are sought to be initiated against the applicant under the same provisions of law.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The purpose of proceedings under Section 107, Cr. P.C. is to require a person to keep peace during the period as may be fixed by the Magistrate extending to one year. In case of imminent breach of peace apprehended, the prosecution can always move under Section 116(3), Cr.P.C. during the enquiry. Another proceedings under Section 107, Cr. P.C. even if it succeeds will again result in same order as may be passed in the earlier proceeding. The order in the earlier proceedings will be effective against any breach of peace even if it is not connected with the incident in respect of which the proceedings are initiated.

5. In these circumstances, successive proceedings during the pendency of earlier ones, under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C. would only amount to harassment without any additional restriction imposable on the applicant. The process of law cannot be used merely to harass a person.

6. The application is, therefore, allowed. Only the proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C. as were initiated earlier against the petitioner are, therefore, to be continued. The subsequent set of proceedings are hereby quashed. However, it will be open to the Magistrate to proceed against the applicant after inclusion of the present proceedings, if it be necessary.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial