Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2022A482/7762/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 CrPC, the single judge bench allowed the quashing of an FIR involving financial irregularities. Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kunwar Singh, the court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by enquiring into merits at the threshold stage, as a final report was already submitted.

What did the court decide?

The quashing of the FIR was ordered on July 15, 2022.

Ashish Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7762 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ashish Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Mustafa,Byas Kumar Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

vkosnd dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0 0176 lu 2021] vUrxZr /kkjk 354] 354Mh] 506 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk fl)kFkZuxj] ftyk fl)kFkZuxj esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= fn0 25&9&2021 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 26665 lu 2021] tks lh0ts0,e0] fl)kFkZuxj ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr izlaKku vkns’k fn0 2&11&2021 ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

¶6

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

¶7

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd vkosndx.k funksZ"k gSa] vkosndx.k us rFkkdfFkr vijk/k dkfjr ugha fd;k gS rFkk lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr izlaKku vkns’k ldkj.k ,oa fof/k lEer ugha gS] vkosndx.k ds fo:) mijksDr /kkjkvksa dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha curk gSA

¶8

fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd mUgksaus bl U;k;ky; ds vkns’k fn0 7&6&2022 ds vuqikyu esa funsZ’k izkIr dj fy;k gS] ftlds vuqlkj vkosnd ,d xSax yhMj Vkbi dk O;fDr gS] iqfyl }kjk mlds fo:) ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ugha ntZ dh x;h gS] dsoy ,u0lh0vkj0 ntZ dh x;h gS] rFkk mlds izHkko ds dkj.k vHkh rd ihfM+rk dk dsoy /kkjk 161 na0iz0la0 dk c;ku ntZ gqvk gSA

¶9

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us iqu% ;g dFku fd;k fd vkosnd fu;fer :i ls fl)kFkZuxj ls ckgj jgdj dksfpax Dyklsl dj jgk gSA

¶10

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr fd, x, lHkh rF; fookfnr iz’u ls lacaf/kr gSa] fdlh O;fDr ds fo:) rych vkns’k ;k izlaKku dk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds Lrj ij dsoy ;g ns[kuk gksrk gS fd eqyfteku ds f[kykQ izFke n"V;k dksbZ ekeyk curk gS ;k ugha] ftl ij /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds rgr fu.kZ; ugha fy;k tk ldrkA bl Lrj ij dsoy izFke n"V;k ekeyk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 ds ekeyksa esa fu/kkZfjr dkuwu ds vkyksd esa ns[kk tkuk gSA bl Lrj ij vfHk;qDr ds fookfnr cpko ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶11

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2021 State of Madhya

¶12

Pradesh Vs. Kunwar Singh decided on 30.07.2021 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd %&

¶13

“Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC by enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the 'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into, the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration of a public

¶14

scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of CrPC, after investigation."

¶15

rn~uqlkj vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk mijksDr okn ls lacaf/kr leLr dk;Zokgh dks vikLr djus dh izkFkZuk vLohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr izLrqr ;g vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA fn0 % 15&7&2022 ds0lh0flag

¶16

2 of 2

¶17

Digitally signed by KAILASH CHANDRA SINGH Date: 2022.07.16 09:38:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Mishra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivam Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Girand Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prosenjit Roy Vs State of U.P and Another

Subes Kumar Shahi @ Sunni and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Papiya @ Arvind @ Pratap Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another