Disposed

Hriday Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024A482/23788/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal court rejected petition to quash FIR, charge sheet, and proceedings against applicant regarding IPC offences. Court refused quash but directed expedited bail hearing within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings denied. Discharge application option noted for trial court. Bail application to be decided expeditiously if filed within 30 days.

Hriday Narayan Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118979

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23788 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hriday Narayan Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶7

This application has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and quash the charge sheet dated 13.09.2022, cognizance order dated 10.04.2023 as well as entire criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 14252 of 2024 (State Vs. Hriday Narayan Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2022 under Sections 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Gaur, District Basti pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 19, Basti and further prayed to stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant by the representative of Gram Pradhan. It is also submitted that incident is said to have taken place in presence of labourers but no any labour has been made witness of the case by the police in the list of witnesses. It is also submitted that the witnesses shown in the charge sheet are related to the informant himself. It is also submitted that the applicant made several complaints of the informant to District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate about his conduct that was the reason present F.I.R. was lodged with false allegations only for making harassment by the informant. It is also submitted that during investigation no proper material was collected even though the learned trial court took cognizance of the offence without applying its judicial mind, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case including charge sheet and cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard.

¶10

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶11

submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the material collected during the course of investigation there appears no ground to grant any indulgence in favour of the applicant at this stage, as a result, prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the case is hereby refused. Further, applicant may have an option to move an application for discharge before the learned trial court which shall be heard and decided in accordance with law on the basis of material on record.

¶12

However, as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is also directed that in case, if applicant appears and moves bail application before the learned court concerned within a period of 30 days from today, the same shall be decided by it as expeditiously as possible in the light of latest law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another LL 2022 SC 577 decided on 11.07.2022.

¶13

Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Suraj Srivastav

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hriday Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hriday Narayan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Master Shivansh Mishra, Thru. His Father Vishnu Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Tejas Pratap Singh vs State of Up and another

Abhay Dwivedi Alias Rocky and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Satendra Tyagi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharmpal Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others