Disposed

Neelam Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2024/529/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition sought quashing of a charge sheet and cognizance order for electricity theft. Citing the limited scope of such jurisdiction per the Supreme Court's guidance, counsel withdrew the merits claim; the court disposed of it directing expeditious bail consideration on surrender.

What did the court decide?

Applicant may surrender and seek bail; bail application to be decided expeditiously per law including Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

Neelam Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6089

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 529 of 2024 Applicant :- Neelam Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Wasim Ahmad,Shivani Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Wasim Ahmad, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amitabh Chaturvedi, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant Neelam Mishra has sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet no. 01, dated 18.10.2022 as well as the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District and Session Court/E.C. Act, Court No.04, DistrictSitapur in Sessions Case No. 803 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 725 of 2020, under Sections 138(1) (B) E of Indian Electricity Act, Police Station Anti Power Theft, District Sitapur.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations made against the applicant and has only to examine whether on the basis of the allegations made and material collected during investigation, the offences are made out against the applicant or not.

¶9

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 holds that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct

¶10

a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".

¶11

Confronted with the aforesaid legal position, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicant may be permitted to surrender and move an application, before the court concerned seeking bail and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶12

Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by observing that in case the applicant appears and files an application for his release on bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶13

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 22.1.2024 Preeti.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neelam Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Revisionist Is Minor 'R' Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Adhar and Othhers Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Dev Kumar Gupta @ Puneet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Mahardul Alias Mahmadul Alias Mohd. Hasan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 6 Others

Sukhdev Prasad Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Vaibhav Purswani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another