Dismissed

Prem Nath Mishra and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020A482/4830/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an application seeking to quash a chargesheet and cognizance order. The court finds sufficient material in the FIR and witness statements to establish a prima facie case and refuses the quashing prayer, but grants a temporary stay on coercive action for 30 days pending surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; 30-day stay on coercive action granted if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Prem Nath Mishra and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4830 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Nath Mishra And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Shambhavi Nandan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Has been filed for quashing the chargesheet dated 27.10.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 11.11.2019 in criminal case no. 3508 of 2019 arising out of case crime no. 440 of 2019 under section 354-B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. police station cholarpur District Varanasi pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Varanasi.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the husband of the opp. party no. 2 Jitendra Mishra was getting old age pension on the basis of forged certificate showing his wrong date of birth. Against which the applicant no. 1 had made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Varanasi and upon which the District magistrate, Varanasi directed the District Social Welfare Officer, Varansi to enquire into the matter. After enquiry pension was stopped and recovery was also made from the husband of the opp. party no. 2 due to which the opp. party no. 2 had lodged the first information report on the basis of an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The I.O. Has not conducted fair investigation and submitted chargesheet against the applicants. No such incident has taken place, false story has been concocted by the opp. party no. 2. No offence is made out against the applicants.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the first information report of this case was lodged by the opp. party no. 2 Urmila Mishra. The opp. party no. 2 in first information report has made allegation of molestation against the applicants. The opp. party no. 2 in her statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has also supported the F.I.R. Version. At this stage only prima facie case has to be seen. It can not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. There is no ground to quash the chargesheet as well as

¶10

cognizance order of the case.

¶11

A perusal of the record shows that F.I.R. was lodged by the opp. party no. 2 on the basis of an application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In first information report the opp. party no. 2 has made allegation of molestation against the applicants. In her statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has also supported the F.I.R. Version. The opp. party no. 2 in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has made specific allegation against the applicants for committing the alleged offence. The Investigating Officer after collecting the evidence has submitted the chargesheet against the applicants.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the chargesheet dated 27.10.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 11.11.2019 of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶14

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.2.2020 Gss

Prem Nath Mishra and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Nath Mishra and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Abad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Yatendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wasi Haidar Vs State of U.P. and 21 Ors.

Gulab Bind and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nepal Vs State of U.P.