Disposed

Suneeta Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024A482/6214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 application, the applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising from a fraudulent property sale despite a stay order. The court observed that the seller had no title during the stay. Notices were issued, and proceedings were stayed pending further orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings were stayed until further orders.

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

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6214 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Suneeta Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of the Crl. Misc. Case No.21/2024 (State Vs. Dudhnath and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 253/2023 under sections 419, 420 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhya as well as impugned charge-sheet No. 329/2023 dated 07.08.2023 including summoning order dated 21.02.2024.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case with the allegation that there was a dispute between the complainant and owner/seller of the property in question and there was an interim order in operation passed by Sub Divisional Officer, in the meantime, he purchased the property, hence, the F.I.R. in question was lodged and the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. It is, thus, submitted that indulgence of this Court is required.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of applicant and submits that all these submissions can be raised before the trial court. However, he does not dispute the fact that as per the prosecution case, property was purchased by the applicant from the owner despite there was a stay order.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of application as well as other relevant documents; it is undisputed fact that seller had no title to sell the property when the stay order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate was in operation. In such circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

¶10

Issue notice to respondent No.2. Steps be taken within seven working days.

¶11

List and connect alongwith APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5570 of 2024.

¶12

Until further order, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Vinay/-

¶14

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

Suneeta Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneeta Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Prema Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Saumitra Shukla vs Govt. of India Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry Dairying, New Delhi and 4 Others

Lalit Kant Verma and 18 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Women Welfare (Mission Vatsalya Yojna ) New Delhi and 3 Others

Vijay Bahadur Singh Alias Jay Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Javed Alam (Husaband) and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another