Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018CRLP/37237/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking a direction to conclude investigation. The Court held the petitioner was not a named person in the FIR and lacked locus to agitate the proceedings, finding no justifiable ground for intervention.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The writ petition was dismissed leaving the matter open to the appropriate forum.

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37237 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Vaishya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gaurav Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to direct the concerned investigating officer to conclude the investigation in a fair and impartial manner vide Case Crime No.777 of 2018, under Sections 409,419,420,467,468,471,120-B IPC, Police Station Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot within stipulated period.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has moved a representation before the respondent no.2 which has not been decided till date and the petitioner is suffering untold hardship on account of pendency of the said representation.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA contended that mere filing of the representation before the respondent no.2 will not accrue any right in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner is neither named in the first information report dated 3.12.2018 nor has got any locus to agitate on the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. The petitioner has not chosen proper forum for ventilating his grievance hence the writ petition may be dismissed outright.

¶9

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to issue any direction to the respondent authorities in reference to the first information report dated 3.12.2018 to which the petitioner is an alien.

¶10

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to rake up his grievance before the appropriate forum.

¶11

Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Naim

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Tripathi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Waris Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sangeeta Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Bhartiya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Safayddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others