Disposed

Ashish Mishra @ Nanhu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2022A482/10294/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court refused to quash the charge sheet and proceedings on Section 482 CrPC application as no abuse of process was evident. Applicants permitted to seek discharge in the trial court within one month.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; applicants allowed to move discharge application in trial court within one month; no coercive action for four months.

Ashish Mishra @ Nanhu and Another Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10294 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ashish Mishra @ Nanhu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sucheta Pathak,Hare Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 22.09.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 06.01.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.32 of 2022 (State Vs. Neeraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPC, Police Station Fatehgarh Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that prima facie no charge under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPC, is made out against the applicants. On the application of the informant, applicants have been falsely roped after 50 days of incident and applicants are relatives of the informant. The present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.

¶8

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶9

As requested, the applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned court and move an application claiming discharge within a period of one month from today from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The concerned court shall decide the application on merits, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of moving discharge application.

¶10

Till four months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶11

With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.7.2022 Priya

¶13

Digitally signed by PRIYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.07.21 15:28:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Mishra @ Nanhu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Mishra @ Nanhu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

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

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

Neel Mani Yadav @ Uttam Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Teji Singh Shankhwar Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary Home U.P. and another