Disposed

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

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023/8404/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court refused to quash the charge sheet directly but granted the applicant liberty to file a discharge application before the Trial Court, directing that court to decide it within 45 days with a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted liberty to move discharge application; Trial Court directed to decide within 45 days.

Sarita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60063

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8404 of 2017

¶4

Applicant :- Sarita Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ambika Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 26.01.2017 in Criminal Case No.1234 of 2017 ( State vs. Madan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.983 of 2016 under Sections 323, 325, 427, 435, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sangrampur, DistrictAmethi as well as summoning order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned Additioal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Sultanpur and to stay the proceedings thereof.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially, the applicant along with other persons were beaten by opposite party no.2/ complainant and his goons and thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged against the opposite party no.2 by the brother of the present aplicant and in retaliation thereof the opposite party no.2/ complainant has lodged an F.I.R. against some persons but the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. He further added that without being any cogent piece of evidence, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer and thereafter the Trial Court ignoring the above said facts, had taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons against the accused persons.

¶9

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no statement of any of the witnesses, wherein the name of the present applicant was overtly disclosed. Further, there is no other evidence against the present applicant but due to collusion with the Investigation Officer to the complainant, the charge sheet has also been filed against the applicant, therefore, trial against the present applicant would be a futile exercise, thus his submission is that the criminal proceedings against the present applicant may be quashed.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A.for the State has opposed

¶11

the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the present applicant may not be named in the F.I.R. but after investigation her name came into light and after collecting material evidence against the applicant, the charge was filed. He next stated that the factual disputes are being raised by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court which cannot be looked into at this stage. Thus, his submission is that no interference is warranted.

¶12

After the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the interest of justice would be subserved if the applicant is granted liberty to move discharge application before the Trial Court concerned and the discharge application may be decided by the Trial Court within the stipulated period of time as fixed by this Court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid submissions, present applicant is at liberty to move application before the Trial Court concerned through her counsel within a period of three weeks and if such application is moved before the Trial Court, the Trial Court is directed to decide the same within a further period of 45 days by a speaking and reasoned order. After the aforesaid decision on the discharge application, the Trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is hereby disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.9.2023 Manoj K.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Dept. of Home and Others

Ravi Prakash @ Ravi Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Heera Lal Rathaur and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Pinku Singh @ Ramveer Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another